Preamble

The House met at Half past Two o'Clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

SOUTHERN RAILWAY BILL [Lords]

Read the Third time, and passed, without Amendment.

CITY OF LONDON (TITHES) BILL [Lords]

SOUTH-WEST MIDDLESEX CREMATORIUM BILL [Lords]

WEAR NAVIGATION AND SUNDERLAND DOCK BILL [Lords]

Read a Second time, and committed.

ALIENS (NATURALISATION)

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That an Address be presented for a Return showing (1) Particulars of all Aliens to whom Certificates of Naturalisation have been issued and whose Oaths of Allegiance have, during the year ended the 31st day of December, 1946, been registered at the Home Office; (2) Information as to any Aliens who have, during the same period, obtained Acts of Naturalisation from the Legislature; and (3) Particulars of cases in which Certificates of Naturalisation have been revoked during the same period (in continuation of Parliamentary Paper No. 166 of Session 1945–46."—[Mr. Oliver.]

Major Legge-Bourke: On a point of Order, Mr. Speaker. Would it be in Order to ask that this Return should include the ages of the people concerned?

Mr. Speaker: I do not think this Order can be amended. A Question could be put down later on that point.

Question put, and agreed to.

Oral Answers to Questions — NATIONAL INSURANCE

Old Age Pensions

Mr. Stanley Prescott: asked the Minister of National Insurance how many claims have been submitted and are outstanding by women old age pensioners who are in receipt of a pension in respect of their husbands' insurance but claim an increased pension by virtue of their own insurance.

The Minister of National Insurance (Mr. James Griffiths): At 7th June, 1947, a total of 13,180 claims to old age pension in right of their own insurance had been received from women who were already receiving pensions by virtue of their husbands' insurance, and 2,818 claims were outstanding. Fresh claims continue to be received at the rate of about 250 a week. Most of those outstanding are cases in which the evidence the applicant can supply in support of the application is insufficient, but there nevertheless seems to be some ground for thinking that the claim may be valid. In such cases the Department themselves make further inquiries, and this is usually a laborious process which takes a long time before all the relevant facts can be ascertained.

Mr. Prescott: Does the right hon. Gentleman appreciate that this delay causes considerable anxiety among claimants, and in view cr1 the fact that there are very many of these cases in my constituency—and no doubt there are many others in the constituencies of other hon. Members—will he do all he can to speed up the matter?

Mr. Griffiths: I appreciate that. The hon. Member sent a case to me which illustrates the difficulty. It was the case of a claimant, reaching pensionable age as far back as 1938, whose insurance ended in 1934. We could have turned it down, but we sent an inspector to the claimant to find out whether there was some other way of giving a pension.

Sir Stanley Reed: While I appreciate fully the difficulties of the Department, will the right hon. Gentleman do all he can to speed up this matter?

Mr. Griffiths: We are doing everything in our power to speed it up.

Air-Commodore Harvey: is the Minister aware that when hon. Members take up these cases with the local authorities, they gain very little satisfaction, and in order to save the right hon. Gentlemen trouble, will he see that that position is remedied?

Mr. Griffiths: The local authorities concerned are the assistance boards. They have their own work to do, but they are helping to the utmost extent in this matter.

Mr. George Jeger: asked the Minister of National Insurance when Mr. E. H. Thompson, 2, Rifleman's Cottages, Stan-more Lane, Winchester, pension No. 29516290, may expect to receive his increased old age pension book which was due in October.

Mr. J. Griffiths: A pension order book at the increased rate was issued to Mr. Thompson on 16th June.

Mr. John Henderson: asked the Minister of National Insurance why Mr. L. McLean and his wife, 108, Boman Street, Glasgow, are not being paid the 42s. old age pension in view of the fact that Mr. McLean was an insured person under the contributory scheme, and the pension of 20s. for the couple was paid without deduction prior to the change in the pension rate.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of National Insurance (Mr. Steele): In accordance with the Increase of Old. Age Pensions Regulations, 1946, Mr. and Mrs. McLean have been in receipt of old age pensions at the increased rates of 23s. 6d. and 13s. 6d. a week respectively, since 4th October, 1946. In addition, they are in receipt of a dependant's war pension of 5s. a week payable in respect of a brother. The total amount received by them by way of pension is, therefore, 42s. a week.

Mr. Granville Sharp: asked the Minister of National Insurance what is the approximate number of women between the ages of 60 and 64 years inclusive, otherwise eligible for an old age pension of 26s. a week, who have had this denied because, though earning less than £1 a week, they worked for more than 12 hours a week; and what action he proposes taking to remove this anomaly.

Mr. Steele: The question whether there is title to the higher rate of pension. depends not on the pensioner's earnings, but on the question whether he can be treated as having retired from regular employment. Certain decisions of the Umpire, who is the final authority on this question, are set out in a paper published by the Stationery Office on the application of provisions relating to retirement, copies of which are available in the Library. The number of cases in which the statutory authorities have held that a pensioner in the circumstances indicated in the Question cannot be treated as retired is not known precisely, but it is very small. These decisions turn upon the interpretation of the statute and my right hon. Friend has no power to vary them.

Mr. Sharp: Is my hon. Friend aware that at the time the National Insurance Bill was going through the House, there was no suggestion that a pensioner who was earning less than £1 a week would be denied that pension because he was working more than 12 hours a week? Is he further aware that the Umpire's decision is not based on the facts, but on the regulations which the Ministry has issued? In view of the anomaly that is created, will he consider amending the regulations?

Mr. Steele: As I pointed out, earnings are not taken into consideration at all in regard to decisions about retirement. Retirement itself is decided, and earnings come into the picture only after the person has retired. The regulations are based on the Act. One of the disturbing features of the type of case to which my hon. Friend has referred is that there are people who are working more than 12 hours a week, and who are receiving a pittance of less than 20s. a week.

Mrs. Jean Mann: Does not my hon. Friend consider that in these days of need for increased production, and in view of the fact that the population is growing older and the number of those reaching pensionable age is mounting, the 20S. limit should be withdrawn altogether?

Mr. Steele: We cover the position in regard to inducement to stay at work, in that portion of the new Act which has not yet come into operation. We do not wish to encourage employers to employ people for more than 12 hours a week at less than 20S.

Mr. Drayson: When the hon. Gentleman is' looking into these regulations, will he consider the question of caretakers? Many old people take jobs as caretakers, and it is difficult to define how many hours they work a week. They are on the job all the time.

Mr. Steele: Every case is treated on its merits.

Mr. Gallacher: Are we to take it that it these old people retire and then go back to their jobs, they will be entitled to draw their pension?

Mr. Steele: Each case must be treated on its merits.

Mr. Douglas Marshall: is the hon. Gentleman aware that his answer is in direct conflict with the Prime Minister's request to everyone to work as hard as possible? Will he reconsider this matter?

Mr. Speaker: We have spent a lot of time on this Question.

Mr. Sharp: In view of the thoroughly unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I beg to give notice that I shall raise this matter on the Adjournment at the earliest opportunity.

Contributory Pensions (Widows)

Mr. Vane: asked the Minister of National Insurance whether he is aware that the widow of an insured person, who had previously received a pension under the Contributory Pensions Acts as the widow of a former husband, will receive a similar widow's pension on the death of her second husband, whereas a widow in a similar position, except that she had received a dependant's war pension after the death of her first husband, is not necessarily eligible on the death of her second husband for a widow's pension; and whether he will amend the rules to ensure that a widow who is receiving a war dependant's pension, and who later re-marries, is in a no less favourable position than a widow who is receiving a widow's pension.

Mr. J. Griffiths: The distinction referred to by my hon. Friend can only arise in the comparatively few cases where the second husband was aged 60 or over at the date of marriage and no claim for contributory widow's pension was made after the first husband's death. It is the

effect of certain special provisions contained in the existing Acts, and will not arise in respect of claims made in similar circumstances under the National Insurance Act.

Overdue Pension Books

Sir Patrick Hannon: asked the Minister of National Insurance what further steps are being taken to free the bottleneck at Blackpool to expedite the issue of overdue pension books to people now eligible for the additional pension; and if he is aware that the public assistance board in Birmingham state they are still dealing with cases which have been outstanding for 17 weeks.

Mr. J. Griffiths: I have made inquiries with regard to the statement referred to in the second part of the Question, and I am satisfied that no such statement was made by an officer of the board. In a reply which I gave to the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Henley (Sir G. Fox) on t5th April, I stated that hoped that by the end of that month pensioners retiring thereafter could ordinarily expect to receive pension order books at the increased rate within four weeks of notifying retirement. That expectation was fulfilled. I am glad to say that it has now been found possible to make further improvements in the procedure for co-operation between the board's officers and my central machinery, as a result of which the interval will be still further reduced from an early date in July.

Sir P. Hannon: Will the Minister give particular attention to these cases in Birmingham? The facts in my Question may not be exact, but there is some substance in it.

Mr. Griffiths: I certainly will do so, but I have had from other Members representing Birmingham constituencies very high tributes to the way the Birmingham Assistance Board deal with these cases.

Sir P. Hannon: I endorse that myself.

Squadron-Leader Fleming: Is it not a tact that many pensions books are sent to the Post Office, whereas if they were sent to the pensioners there would be no delay?

Mr. Griffiths: That would involve a change in the whole system by which the books have been sent to the Post Office


and warrants have been sent to the pensioners. But when our own system is complete, we shall look into this mattes again to see whether we can devise a better system.

Mr. Sutcliffe: Is the Minister aware that at some offices of the Assistance Board there are bitter complaints of the serious mistakes which are being made at Blackpool, and which seem to be increasing, thus causing books to go backward and forward, leading to still further delay?

Mr. Griffiths: I cannot investigate a general complaint. I know very well that there have been delays. I took all the risks—and I am not afraid of saying so—in bringing a big scheme of this kind into operation within two months of the passing of the Act. I agree that there have been disappointments, but, on the other hand, millions of old age pensioners are now enjoying their benefit.

Oral Answers to Questions — EMPLOYMENT

Night Baking

Mr. Bowden: asked the Minister of Labour if the representatives of the employers' and workpeople's organisations in the baking industry have yet reported to him on the abolition of night baking.

The Minister of Labour (Mr. Isaacs): No, Sir; but I understand that negotiations between the two sides are still proceeding.

Mr. Bowden: Can my right hon. Friend say when he expects to have the report?

Mr. Isaacs: I cannot give the slightest indication. Negotiations are going on between the parties without the Ministry's intervention.

Disabled Persons, County Durham

Mr. Fernyhough: asked the Minister of Labour the number of persons on the register of disabled persons at present recorded as unemployed at Employment Exchanges at Felling, County Durham, and at Hebburn and Jarrow, County Durham respectively.

Mr. Isaacs: The number of registered disabled persons capable of ordinary em-

ployment, but recorded as unemployed on 19th May, 1947, was b7 at the Felling Exchange and 233 at the Hebburn and Jarrow Exchange. In addition, there were 14 and 26. unemployed at these two Exchanges respectively who were classified as severely disabled and needing sheltered employment.

Mr. Fernyhough: Is my right hon. Friend aware that in this Development Area there is a feeling that some employers are avoiding their legal and moral responsibility? Will he check up on the position, and satisfy public opinion that the Act is being observed?

Mr. Isaacs: I will gladly do so. We are a little concerned at the relatively high number of unemployed disabled persons in this area, and while I am satisfied that, in the main, employers are doing their best, I agree that there is need for further attention being paid to this matter.

Prisoners of War (Return)

Mr. Skeffington-Lodge: asked the Minister of Labour whether, in the case of those prisoners, of war who may be unemployed in Germany, and who were repatriated prior to the adoption of the scheme enabling prisoners to remain in this country as free workmen, he will consider allowing them to return under an arrangement imposing the same conditions as apply to men now opting to stay here.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour (Mr. Ness Edwards): No, Sir. As already announced, it is not proposed to allow German prisoners of war who were employed in agriculture in this country before their repatriation, to return to this country.

Oral Answers to Questions — INTERNATIONAL LABOUR CONFERENCE

Mr. H. Hynd: asked the Minister of Labour why no Ministers have been included in the Government delegation to this year's International Labour Conference.

Mr. Isaacs: The International Labour Conference takes place at Geneva for about three weeks, beginning on 19th June. It has been the practically invariable custom of Ministers of Labour to attend for part of the Conference, and I propose myself to do so for the week be-


ginning 22nd June. My right hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary will attend the Conference for the week beginning 29th June. We both anticipate taking part in the proceedings of the Conference

Oral Answers to Questions — SCOTLAND

Nurses

Mr. Hector Hughes: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he is aware of the shortage of nurses in Scotland; and what is being done to improve the status and training of nurses and to make that career more attractive to suitable women.

The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Westwood): I am aware of the shortage of nurses in Scotland. The status and training of nurses will have to be reviewed in the light of the report which the Minister of Health and I expect to receive soon from the Working Party on Recruitment and Training of Nurses. The attractions of nursing as a career have been much improved recently as a result of the Scottish Nurses Salaries Committee's recommendations on remuneration and conditions of service, and employing authorities are fully alive to the need for improving working conditions, especially as regards hours of duty and residential accommodation. They are handicapped, however, by building and other difficulties.

Mr. Hughes: Is my right non. Friend aware that this necessary service is threatened with chaos through overwork of existing staffs, and general depletion owing to bad conditions? Will he expedite the steps he is taking to improve the standards of living and pay?

Mr. Westwood: I am not aware that it is threatened with chaos, but there is need for improvements with a view to getting further recruits.

Rates (Return)

Mr. J. S. C. Reid: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he will publish a return for the current year on the lines of the Return of Rates in Scotland published in 1945

Mr. Westwood: I regret that the publication of further statistical returns and other Departmental reports is not possible meanwhile in view of printing difficulties. I am, however, sending the right hon. Gentleman a copy of a duplicated return

prepared in my Department showing the rates for the years 1945–46 and 1946–47.

Mr. Reid: It seems a pity that the Stationery Office cannot print these dozen pages or so, but if they cannot do so, will the right hon. Gentleman consider producing an abridged return, including the counties and the large burghs?

Mr. Westwood: I will certainly be prepared to consider that.

Mr. McKinlay: Will the Minister include in the return details of the services given to the ratepayers for the rates paid?

Tuberculosis Allowances Scheme

Mr. Willis: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland how many allowances under the Tuberculosis Allowances Scheme have ceased to become payable in Edinburgh and in Scotland, respectively, because of recovery, and because of death.

Mr. Westwood: Up to 31st March, 1947, the number of persons in Edinburgh ceasing to receive allowances under this scheme because of recovery was 150, and because of death 11. For all Scotland, the corresponding figures are 2,930 and 1,060.

Mr. Willis: In view of the chronic nature of the disease of applicants for allowances under this scheme, do not these figures reveal a very cruel anomaly, and will the Secretary of State look into this matter with a view to removing that anomaly?

Mr. Westwood: The whole question of tuberculosis allowances is being considered in association with the new health services that are to be brought into operation under the Health Service Act which was passed by the House.

Mr. Willis: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland how many applications for allowances under the Tuberculosis Allowances Scheme have been granted in Edinburgh since its inception; and how many have been refused because of means, and because of the chronic nature of the disease.

Mr. Westwood: From the beginning of the Tuberculosis Allowances Scheme in Edinburgh on 30th June, 1943, up to 31st March. 1947, 362 applicants were granted


allowances, 51 applications were refused on financial grounds, and 230 refused because of the chronic nature of the disease.

Mr. Willis: Do not these figures, taken together with the figures given in answer to the previous Question, show how cruelly this scheme operates and, although it is under consideration, is there nothing which the Minister can do meanwhile to remove some of these injustices?

Mr. Westwood: I do not admit that the scheme operates cruelly. I claim that, in view of the purpose for which the scheme was inaugurated, the figures which I have given prove that it has been a remarkable success.

Mr. Lipson: Does not the right hon. Gentleman agree that it is cruel that a person suffering from tuberculosis should be told that his condition is so serious that he is not eligible for a grant; and in view of the fact that the number involved is small and the additional cost will not be great, will not he review this matter?

Mr. Westwood: I have already indicated that the whole matter is being reviewed in view of the fact that the House as passed, both for England and Scotland, a new Health Service Act which makes it possible to review the whole situation so far as this scheme and other schemes associated with health administration are concerned.

Mr. Willis: In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I beg to give notice that I shall raise the matter on the Adjournment.

Oral Answers to Questions — MINISTRY OF PENSIONS

War Pension Code (Review)

Mr. De la Bère: asked the Minister of Pensions whether, in connection with the disabled ex-Service men's basic pension and other matters calling for review, he will consider appointing a commission to review and revise the Royal Warrant so as to ensure the practical changes necessitated by the changed conditions which have arisen during the past two years.

Mr. Geoffrey Cooper: asked the Minister of Pensions if he will make a statement with regard to the raising of the pension rates for ex-Service men and women

The Minister of Pensions (Mr. John Hynd): A comprehensive review of the War Pension Code was made by the present Government less than two years ago and an increase in the basic rate was one of the many improvements made in February last year and embodied in the Royal Warrant Of 12th April, 1946 (Command 6799). Several further improvements have since been made and announced in the House, and amending Royal Warrants were issued in March and May of this year (Command 7096 and Command 7124). The Government do not, therefore, consider that a special Commission to undertake a further comprehensive review of the War Pension Code is necessary, but I can assure the hon. Member that I will continue to consult my Central Advisory Committee on any matters which may require review in the light of changing conditions.

Mr. De la Bere: Is the Minister aware that conditions have materially changed in the last few years, and was there not a specific promise made that ex-Service men would not be let down? Is it not possible now to do something in view of the increased cost of living, and is not the whole position utterly unsatisfactory?

Mr. Hynd: I do not think that is borne out by the figures. Since 1939, the increases have been very substantial and in some cases have been more than 100 per cent. If the hon. Member would care for the figures, they are; percentage increase in the case of a pensioner, 38.5; pensioner and wife, 46.6; pensioner, wife and one child, 47; pensioner, wife and two children, 52.7; pensioner, wife and three children, 57.6; pensioner, wife and four children. 61.9.

Mr. De la Bere: The basic figures are all wrong.

Lieut.-Commander Gurney Braithwaite: Will the Minister give the House an assurance that this deserving and unorganised section of the community will not be allowed to lag behind the able-bodied in securing increases in their pensions?

Mr. Hynd: I have given a general answer to that.

Mr. Shurmer: Is it not a fact that there are now fewer ex-Service men turning the organ in the street than there were after the 1914–18 war?

Mr. G. Cooper: In view of the millions being paid by the Government in full compensation for property damaged by the war, is it too much for men and women maimed and wrecked in the service of their country to expect something more than the present niggardly 45s. a week paid for full disability?

Mr. De la Bere: I shall get up on this point day after day. I am sick and tired of the way in which it is being dealt with. It is utterly disgraceful. I beg to give notice that I shall raise the matter again on the Adjournment. It is thoroughly unsatisfactory.

Personal Cases

Air-Commodore Harvey: asked the Minister of Pensions what pension will be granted to Mrs. Hannah, widow of the late Sergeant Hannah, V.C., and her three daughters.

Mr. J. Hynd: Mrs. Hannah has been awarded a pension for herself, allowances for her three daughters and a rent allowance, amounting in all to 3 17s. a week. In addition the normal family allowances of 10s. a week are, of course, being paid and Mrs. Hannah has been invited to apply for an education grant in respect of her daughter.

Air-Commodore Harvey: Does the right hon. Gentleman consider that the pension he has made is suitable for a man who served his country so conspicuously?

Mr. Hynd: That is the maximum pension payable under the Royal Warrant, which, I think, has the general acceptance of the House. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] The question now being raised is rather wider than the Question on the Order Paper. These are not the complete provisions that can be made by the State in a case of this kind.

Mr. Anthony Greenwood: Will the Minister consider with his colleagues the possibility of making the small annuity which goes with the Victoria Cross payable to the widow and her children?

Mr. Hynd: That is not within my province.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Is it not a fact that the figures which the right hon. Gentleman has given do not amount to an extra penny for this lady by reason of her husband's extreme heroism?

Mr. Hynd: The Ministry of Pensions are not charged with making a reward for heroism or for the possession of a particular decoration. The Ministry of Pensions' code is limited to the payment of the statutory amounts, and the maximum is being paid in this case.

Mr. Janner: Is the Minister aware that, owing to the very serious condition in which the widow and the children find themselves, a public subscription list has been opened in Leicester; and will he do all he possibly can, in conjunction with his colleagues, if he is not able to do it by himself alone; to see that this very deserving case is looked into and adequately dealt with very quickly?

Mr. Hynd: I was not aware of the facts which the hon. Gentleman suggests exist in this case. I know that there are certain commitments which this lady undertook before her husband's death, and I think it will be possible for certain arrangements to be made to cover these. I was not aware that the actual circumstances were as hard as the hon. Gentleman has stated.

Mr. James Callaghan: Can my right hon. Friend say whether there is any point in the allegation that has appeared in some newspapers that there was any delay in his office in dealing with the case?

Mr. Hynd: No; the position is that two days after the husband's death, one of our regional officers visited the lady and arranged for the provisional payment of 68s. a week pending assessment of the pension.

Mr. Collins: asked the Minister of Pensions if he has now reconsidered the case of Mrs. Sheffield, which was referred to him by the hon. Member for Taunton; and if he will grant any increase in her present pension of 27s. 6d. per week.

Mr. J. Hynd: Mrs. Sheffield is at present in receipt of the maximum pension provided by the Royal Warrant, and I have, therefore, no power to grant any increase.

Mr. Collins: Is the Minister aware that Mrs. Sheffield is an invalid widow of 59 years of age, and that her two sons supported her in reasonable comfort until both were killed on active service? Since 27s. 6d. is the maximum pension payable, and, after deduction of rent and


fixed charges, she only has 10s. per week to live on, will he not look into this question to see if there is any possible way to increase the maximum?

Mr. Hynd: Of course, I am not empowered to make any increase in the maximum pension payable by my Ministry. It is also not desirable in all cases to isolate the Ministry of Pensions payments from other social insurance arrangements. The fact is that this is the maximum pension payable in the case of a widowed mother. Generally, a widow is in receipt of a widow's or retirement pension. In the case of widowers, they are generally in receipt of old age pensions or disability or sickness benefit from the State. The whole circumstances have to be taken into consideration. So far as my Department is concerned, we have to be bound by the Royal Warrant.

Mr. De la Bère: Change the Royal Warrant.

Special Pensions (1914–18 War)

Lieut.-Commander Clark Hutchison: asked the Minister of Pensions whether, in view of the increase in the cost of living, he will now consider increasing the rate of the alternative pension paid under the Royal Warrants governing awards in respect of service in the 1914–18 war.

Mr. J. Hynd: These special pensions are paid at varying rates and are always in excess of the standard rate appropriate to the individual case. In the circumstances, I see no ground for increasing them.

Oral Answers to Questions — POLES (SCOTLAND)

Mr. Hector Hughes: asked the Secretary of State for War how many Poles there are still in Scotland; where they are situated; how many of them have become naturalised British citizens; and how many of them, both naturalised and otherwise, are earning their own livings or are in productive employment, and in what kind of employment, respectively.

The Secretary of State for War (Mr. Bellenger): As the answer is rather long and contains a number of figures, I will, with permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Mr. Hughes: Is it not true that many of these Poles are living in this country,

consuming without producing, and is it not right that they should be given the opportunity of earning their keep?

Mr. Bellenger: Yes, Sir; I am afraid my hon. and learned Friend is right, and that some of them are living in this country without earning their keep; and we are endeavouring to alter that.

Following is the answer:

There are 32,350 Poles in Scotland for whom my Department is responsible. Apart from those awaiting repatriation the majority are in units of the Polish Resettlement Corps stationed in the following places: Alness, Banff, Budden, Carronbridge, Dallachy, Easthaven, Forres, Langholm, Paisley, Peterhead, Stirling, Winfield.

In addition there are relatively small units in a number of other places in Scotland. I understand from my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary that information as to the number of Poles who have become naturalised British citizens is not readily available. 4,285 Poles have been released from the Polish Resettlement Corps in Scotland in order to take up civil employment in Scotland and other parts of the United Kingdom. I am informed by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour that they are employed principally on agriculture, building and civil engineering, and in coal-mining. 2,143 Poles still in the Polish Resettlement Corps are on loan to farmers in Scotland.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRADE UNIONS, PALESTINE (RECOGNITION)

Mr. Yates: asked the Secretary of State for War when the hon. Member for Ladywood can expect a reply to his letter dated 3rd February, regarding the consistent refusal of his Department in Palestine to recognise workers' trade unions; if he is aware that a one day strike of the workers concerned, numbering 40,000, occurred on 20th May; and what action he has taken to settle the dispute.

Mr. Bellenger: I am sorry, but it is not yet possible to give a final reply to my hon. Friend because discussions are still in progress with the authorities in Palestine regarding the possibility of recognising for negotiation purposes the workers' trade unions in that country.


The problem is not one for the War Office alone, but requires careful examination by all the United Kingdom Government Departments concerned; but I can give an assurance that delay in reaching a decision will not be longer than is unavoidable. The local military authorities are fully aware of, and in fact fulfil, their obligation to receive, discuss and consider any representations made by these unions on behalf of their members in War Department employment. I have heard of the one-day strike to which my hon. Friend refers, but do not know whether it was due entirely to the non-recognition of the workers' unions or to other causes.

Mr. Yates: Is the Secretary of State aware that the working conditions of these men are very much worse than those prevailing in private employment and also in the service of Government Departments outside Palestine in neighbouring countries? Is it reasonable to expect a reply to a letter sent four months ago?

Mr. Bellenger: Yes, Sir; certainly. If my hon. Friend has not received a reply, I will look into the matter. With regard to the first part of the supplementary question, conditions in Palestine, as regards workers, are different from conditions in this country, inasmuch as there is much more intensive competition for work there. I am afraid there are very few trade union organisations to represent those men.

Colonel Gomme-Duncan: Could the right hon. Gentleman say, apart from the military authorities in Palestine, what other authorities there are with whom he can negotiate?

Mr. Bellenger: It is not only a question of those employed by the War Department. Naturally, there are also other Government Departments involved.

Mr. George Thomas: Will my right hon. Friend try to bring to an end these annoying delays that take place in his Department? When they occur, could he arrange to have interim messages sent to hon. Members, who are often put to great inconvenience by the delays in his Department?

Mr. Bellenger: There is not the delay which my hon. Friend represents. Actually my hon. Friend wrote to me on 3rd February, and he withdrew his

question on the understanding that we would let him have a report as soon as we could; but I am bound to tell the House that these negotiations are so complicated, and involve a number of other Government Departments, that an early decision will not be possible.

Mr. Janner: In view of the fact that these unions provide a very good opportunity for co-operation between the Arab and Jewish populations in Palestine, will my right hon. Friend do all he can to encourage the unions to extend their activities as much as possible?

Mr. Bellenger: Yes, Sir, but there are Jews and Arabs in Palestine, and that is part of the difficulty.

Mr. Yates: I am not aware that I have withdrawn any Question. May I ask for information on this? I understand from the reply of the Secretary of State that he is not yet in a position to reply to my letter. I am referring to a letter which I sent on the 3rd February. Is it not reasonable to expect a reply to that letter by now?

Mr. Bellenger: May I ask my hon. Friend to have a word with me afterwards?

Oral Answers to Questions — BRITISH ARMY

War Graves (Relatives' Visits)

Commander Maitland: asked the Secretary of State for War if he is now in a position to make a statement outlining facilities which will be given to relatives of deceased Service men to visit graves overseas.

Mr. Kendall: asked the Secretary of State for War whether facilities have yet been granted to enable parents to visit the graves of their sons killed on the Continent.

Mr. Bellenger: I have nothing to add yet to the reply given to my hon. Friend the Member for Burslem (Mr. A. Edward Davies) on 13th May.

Commander Maitland: Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that the burgomaster of Nijmegen has offered free accommodation to the relatives of Service men buried there, and also a free passage to the Hook of Holland; and that there does not appear at present to be any national organisation to get the widows


from, in this case, Horncastle, to the Hook of Holland? Does he realise also that, if there is further delay, the very people who cannot afford it will suffer the most? Will the Secretary of State, therefore, try to see if he can get something done about this very important matter?

Mr. Bellenger: Yes, Sir, I will. I have every sympathy with those distressed relatives, and I am very glad to hear of the generous offer of the burgomaster of Nijmegen. But we cannot limit these facilities to any one special class. We have to make them universal.

Mr. George Wallace: Is it not better to have people of this type visiting relatives' graves than to have people going abroad to evade the currency regulations?

Mr. Medlicott: Will the right hon. Gentleman make sure that there is proper co-ordination between his Department and the War Graves Commission to avoid what happened recently, when an organised party arrived on the other side and found the cemetery was in a transitional stage, with no list of graves and no flowers, with the result that the visit caused a good deal of distress in some' ways? Will he try to avoid that when these visits take place?

Mr. Bellenger: Yes, Sir. Among my other duties, I am also Chairman, ex-officio, of the Imperial War Graves Commission.

Mr. Chetwynd: What is causing this indecision? Would it not be better to allow relatives to go to those places where conditions are favourable?

Mr. Bellenger: Certain relatives do go unassisted, but what we are going to do is to try to evolve some scheme which will help those relatives not able to pay their passages.

Mr. Granville Sharp: Can my right hon. Friend say whether the delay is due to the fact that the cemeteries are not properly organised, or whether it is due to the fact that his Deparment have not yet arranged to look after the relatives when they get there?

Mr. Bellenger: Not all the cemeteries are properly organised. It is an immense problem to recover so many bodies, scattered as they are over the battlefields,

and concentrate them; but I am glad to say that the work is progressing very well indeed.

Transfers from Indian Army

Mr. Touche: asked the Secretary of State for war if he will take steps to ensure that British sergeants, now being compulsorily transferred from the Indian Army Corps of Clerks to the R.A.S.C., shall not suffer a reduction of pay owing to such transfer.

Mr. Bellenger: There is no question of compulsory transfer in this case. Except for some senior ranks who are pensionable by age and service and cannot be absorbed into the British service, all concerned are to be offered the alternatives of discharge with pension or gratuity as applicable under the current regulations, or voluntary transfer to the British service which would of course mean serving on British rates of pay and allowances.

Home Guard Rifle Clubs

Mr. Raikes: asked the Secretary of State for War whether commanding officers have been instructed that Home Guard rifle clubs, formed at the request of his Department, are still to receive the privilege of using ranges on his Department's property.

Mr. Bellenger: Yes, Sir.

Surplus Vehicles, Germany

Mr. Gammans: asked the Secretary of State for War how many vehicles are still parked on the autobahn between Hamburg and Bremen; what is their estimated value and why steps have not been taken to dispose of these vehicles and prevent further deterioration.

Mr. Bellenger: The answer to the first part of the Question is approximately 25,000, not all of which are on Army charge. It is not readily possible to make any accurate estimate of the value of these vehicles. All possible action is constantly being taken to dispose of all vehicles surplus to Army requirements. It is, however, necessary to inspect and classify all vehicles before they are handed over to the Ministry of Supply, so as to ensure that the best vehicles are kept for future Army needs. Some 83,000 vehicles have already been made available by the Army of the Rhine for disposal, of which approximately half have been sold.

Mr. Gammans: Is it not outrageous that two years after the end of the German war, on a Continent starved for motor transport, there should be 25,000 vehicles lying rotting?

Mr. Bellenger: It is not quite correct to say that they are rotting. Unfortunately, too many of the personnel in the Army are engaged in looking after these vehicles and keeping them up to trim either for Army use or as surplus for disposal.

Mr. Stokes: Has my right hon. Friend been assured that adequate guards are on duty to prevent the depredations that are constantly being made by those in search of spare parts?

Mr. Bellenger: I am not assured, but I have not got the men to make that possible.

Mr. Martin Lindsay: Is it not a fact that this has now been going on for over 18 months, because this was exactly the situation, when I was out there in January of last year, to which I drew the right hon. Gentleman's attention as soon as I got back?

Mr. Bellenger: I am bound to say that in my opinion some of these vehicles will be worth little more than scrap iron.

Mr. Eden: Surely, if there are not sufficient men to take care of these vehicles, it would be better to dispose of them?

Mr. Bellenger: Yes, but that is not my responsibility.

Mr. Eden: I do not think that we can accept that answer. It is, presumably, the responsibility of the Government, and if it is not the right hon. Gentleman's responsibility, will he get into consultation with the right hon. Gentleman whose responsibility it is, and tell the House what he proposes to do about it?

Mr. Bellenger: I think that if the right hon. Gentleman wants any detailed answer to his question, the proper course for him to adopt would be to put it to the appropriate Minister. I can only do my job, and I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that we are in very close touch with the Ministry of Supply on these matters.

Mr. Bramall: Will the right hon. Gentleman say whether any of these vehicles can be disposed of before they become scrap, to the German population who are very badly in need of them?

Mr. Bellenger: Yes, Sir. I rather think some of them go to the Control Commission for that purpose.

West African Command (Reinforcement)

Major Legge-Bourke: asked the Secretary of State for War if he is aware that units in the Sierra Leone and Gambia area have been informed that the reinforcement situation in the United Kingdom is extremely bad at the moment and that it will frequently be necessary for tour-expired officers and other ranks to serve for some considerable time over their 18 months tour; and if he will, therefore, make a further statement on the reinforcement position for West Africa Command.

Mr. Bellenger: The answer to the first part of the Question is, "No, Sir." As regards the second, the reinforcement position in the West African Command is peculiar in that their requirements are all for experienced officers and non-commissioned officers. These are just the type which are in short supply as a result of the release scheme. Nevertheless, substantial numbers have been, and are being drafted, and I hope that it will not be necessary to retain many, if any, officers or noncommissioned officers after their tour expires.

Major Legge-Bourke: Is the Minister aware that in a reply on 6th May he told me that provision had been made for the replacement of all personnel requested by the Command, and is he further aware that, on 28th June, notification, as outlined in the first part of my Question, was given to the units in the area concerned? Will he give an assurance now that all provision has been made to meet the requests of the Command?

Mr. Bellenger: The situation changes from day to day. West African Command is only one of the Commands which we have to reinforce.

Major Legge-Bourke: Will the right hon. Gentleman say what is the maximum period a man is likely to be delayed through the extension of the normal period of service in that theatre?

Mr. Bellenger: As I said in the last part of my reply, I hope it will be possible that none will be delayed. At any rate, I hope very few indeed will be delayed.

Mr. Henry Strauss: Why does the right hon. Gentleman use the words "in short supply" when he means "scarce"?

Mr. Bellenger: Whichever the hon. and learned Gentleman pleases.

Territorial Army (Messing Equipment)

Major Legge-Bourke: asked the Secretary of State for War what arrangements he is making for the equipment of T.A. messes with the necessary supplies of cutlery, crockery and other stores of a permanent nature.

Mr. Bellenger: Associations may buy cutlery, crockery and mess equipment from Ordnance, but owing to shortage of stock their demands cannot always be met, and they are, therefore, encouraged to buy from the civilian market. An initial grant towards these purchases will be made from public funds to new units which are being raised in the Territorial Army. Provision is also made for the maintenance and improvement of messing equipment in the annual Establishment Grant issued to all units.

Major Legge-Bourke: Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that commanding officers in some newly formed Territorial units are having to solicit charitable contributions in order that these messes may be equipped, and does not he think it scandalous that the Territorial Army should have to rely on charity in order to equip these messes?

Mr. Bellenger: I know there are difficulties but the Territorial Army is not the only one experiencing them. I do not think the question is so much one of finance as one of supplies of these things.

Sir William Darling: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that when Territorial associations have to secure crockery, they go to the source of civilian supply, and is not that restricting the possibility of supply for the civilian population, which is already experiencing short supplies in these things?

Mr. Bellenger: I think the hon. Gentleman would be advised to put that

question to my right hon. and learned Friend the President of the Board of Trade.

Mr. Godfrey Nicholson: Are any more supplies coming from N.A.A.F.I. and has the right hon. Gentleman given serious study to the degree to which the recruiting campaign is being hampered by these things?

Mr. Bellenger: I am giving close study to that, but this is only one of my worries in regard to the recruiting for the Territorial Army. I might add that N.A.A.F.I. have to inform the Territorial organisation of any surplus.

Brigadier Low: Will the right hon. Gentleman say what happened to most of the equipment belonging to units of, the Territorial Army no longer existing? Could he not arrange that the mess equipment of those unit3 be made available to the new units, and am I not right in saying that there are fewer new units than there were old units which no longer exist?

Mr. Bellenger: That is an entirely different question, and perhaps the hon. and gallant Gentleman will put it on the Order Paper.

Mr. Gallacher: In view of the very great shortage of cutlery and crockery for Territorial Army and domestic users, would not the right hon. Gentleman consider requisitioning the great masses of these things which at the present time are in the large country houses?

Major Legge-Bourke: Will there be any additional official assistance in this matter above the 5s. per head grant?

Mr. Bellenger: The establishment grant for this financial year for male units is r8s 6d. a head.

Camp, Raynes Park

Mr. Palmer: asked the Secretary of State for War if he will now announce his decision on the release of the Army camp at Raynes Park for housing purposes.

Mr. Bellenger: I am considering using this camp for the re-housing of certain families whom I may have to assist in finding accommodation. I regret, therefore, that I cannot make it available to the local authority.

Mr. Palmer: Is my right hon. Friend aware that I have been in correspondence with his Department since 1945 on this matter and that he promised me a speedy reply over a month ago which I have not received, and does not the whole business show a degree of incompetence and procrastination unusual even for the War Office?

Mr. Bellenger: I wish my hon. Friend would be a little fairer to me and tell the House the whole of the story, because he has been on the telephone more than once. I do not know whether he considers that a communication from the War Office.

Garrisons, West Indies

Brigadier Low: asked the Secretary of State for War in which of the British West Indian Colonies an Imperial garrison is maintained and at what strength; and how it compares with that maintained before the war.

Mr. Bellenger: British garrisons are maintained in Jamaica and Bermuda. It would be contrary to practice to disclose their strengths.

Brigadier Low: Is it not a fact that these strengths were disclosed before the war? Why should they not be disclosed now?

Mr. Bellenger: For many reasons, which the Minister of Defence gave in a recent Debate in this House.

Major Legge-Bourke: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that not so very long ago a report appeared in the "Daily Worker" that there are thousands of British troops overseas holding down the population of the Colonies, and will not he do something to deny that?

Mr. Bellenger: I do not think it is necessary for me to deny everything that is said in the "Daily Worker."

Oral Answers to Questions — SURRENDERED ENEMY PERSONNEL (STATUS)

Mr. Driberg: asked the Secretary of State for War in what respect the status of surrendered enemy personnel differs from that of prisoners of war; how many Germans who surrendered in the closing stages of the war were regarded as being in the former category; whether these have been repatriated in advance

of prisoners of war; and if he will examine the position of a few prisoners in Camp 78, near Braintree, Essex, who claim that they should have been treated as surrendered enemy personnel.

Mr. Bellenger: Approximately 2,000,000 German surrendered enemy personnel came under our control as the result of absolute and unconditional surrender at the end of hostilities. Though we have not recognised their right to be treated as prisoners of war, we have, whenever practicable, given them similar treatment and any brought to this country certainly have no claim to be repatriated in advance of their fellow countrymen who were made prisoners of war during hostilities. The last part of the Question, therefore, does not arise.

Oral Answers to Questions — DISABLED POLES (ARGENTINE)

Mr. Driberg: asked the Secretary of State for War if he is aware that a number of disabled Polish soldiers formerly domiciled in the Argentine, whence they came voluntarily to enlist in the Allied Forces, have been unable to rejoin their wives and families in the Argentine and are still held, nine months after their original demobilisation, at a Polish convalescent depot near Newbury; whether disability pension is paid to these men now and will be paid to them when they are eventually repatriated to the Argentine; and if he will take immediate steps to remedy this hardship.

Mr. Bellenger: These disabled Polish soldiers have been unable to rejoin their families owing to the refusal of the Argentine authorities to allow them to disembark. 'They have, therefore, been returned to this country and re-absorbed into the Polish Land Forces. For the present they are continuing to be paid as members of these Forces and the question of disability pension does not arise. The issue of disability pensions to them when they are discharged from the Polish Forces would be a matter for my right hon. Friend the Minister of Pensions to consider. I am consulting my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary as to what action can be taken to obtain permission for them to return to the Argentine.

Mr. Driberg: Is my right hon. Friend aware that these unfortunate men were


actually sent to the Argentine last autumn and that, merely because they were disabled through war service in the Allied cause, they were not allowed to land, but were sent right back to this country where they have been in a convalescent depot ever since, and will he take most urgent steps to deal with this matter?

Mr. Bellenger: Yes, Sir; I am well aware of that, and I am doing all I can to persuade the Argentine Government to accept them.

Mr. Drayson: Will the Secretary of State for War take advantage of the presence in this country of Senora Peron to bring to her notice this very distressing case, in which event I hope he will have more success than the Foreign Secretary had with Mr. Stalin concerning the British wives in Moscow?

Mr. Bellenger: Certainly, I shall be delighted to make the acquaintance of this lady, and I feel confident that if only I can meet her. I shall have considerable success.

Mr. Scollan: If the Minister meets this lady, would he ask her a further question, and ascertain whether she would not take the whole of the Polish troops we now have in Scotland?

Mr. Godfrey Nicholson: Has the right hon. Gentleman visited this camp, and is he satisfied that something is being done to maintain the spirit of its inhabitants, because from what I have seen of them wandering about in the vicinity they look utterly miserable and feel completely dejected.

Mr. Bellenger: I have not visited the camp myself, but I will certainly cause inquiries to be made.

Oral Answers to Questions — PROPOSED ATOMIC POWER STATION, DRIGG

Mr. Henry Strauss: asked the Minister of Town and Country Planning whether and on what date, he has been consulted on the proposal to establish an atomic power station at Drigg, Cumberland; and whether, to relieve anxiety, he will inform the House of his views thereon.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Town and Country Planning (Mr. Fred Marshall): My right hon. Friend was consulted by my right hon. Friend

the Minister of Supply, on 30th May. He is now considering the proposal, but is not yet in a position to express any views upon it.

Oral Answers to Questions — NATIONAL FINANCE

Income Tax (Lower-Wage Earners)

Mr. Hector Hughes: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer in view of the considerable number of lower-wage earners who formerly were, but are not now, liable for Income Tax, if he will give directions which will obviate the keeping of record cards relating to such persons and thus save the manpower and paper which, at present, doing so entails.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Dalton): This has been done. Where it is clear that no tax will be payable unless there is an appreciable increase in the average rate of pay, employers need not fill up weekly record cards.

National Income (Distribution)

Mr. Osborne: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what proportion of the national income is received by taxpayers with incomes under £500 a year; how many people are in this category; and how many are in the remaining group.

Mr. Dalton: I would refer the hon. Member to Table 10 of the White Paper on National Income and Expenditure (Cmd. 7099)

Mr. Osborne: Are those figures up to date or are they 12 months old? What I want are the up-to-date figures.

Mr. Dalton: They give the most recent information we have. There is, of course, always a time lag in the collection of this information, but I hope that in due course we shall be able to give more up-to-date figures. As I have said, the most recent information is contained in the table I have mentioned.

Mr. Osborne: How old are those figures?

Mr. Dalton: If the hon. Gentleman will turn up the table, he will find that it is all clearly explained.

Music Royalties, United States (Dollar Payments)

Mr. Edward Evans: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what


amount of dollars is involved in payment to United States writers of songs and dance music by way of royalties and performing rights; and what steps he proposes to take to reduce these payments and so conserve our dollar resources.

Mr. Dalton: About £150,000 a year for royalties and performing rights of music of all sorts. I do not propose to interfere in this particular matter.

Mr. E. Evans: Is the Chancellor aware that this liability is unnecessarily increased by the plugging of music for which dance band leaders are paid?

Mr. Dalton: We must not be too censorious about how people like to take their enjoyment. If people like this kind of thing, this is the kind of thing they like.

Gift Parcels (Saccharin)

Commander Maitland: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer why tablets containing more than one per cent, of saccharin in gift parcels from U.S.A. are charged as if they consisted wholly of saccharin; and whether he is aware that the object of using these tablets is to save sugar, which can then be used for other and more vital purposes.

Mr. Dalton: This charge is in accordance with the law; I appreciate why the tablets are sent, but there are very strong practical reasons against any change in the present arrangements.

Commander Maitland: Could not the Chancellor go a little further, because surely there is a shortage of saccharin tablets in this country at the moment; are they not one of the greatest sources of saving sugar, and could not something be done to enable them to be sent to this country as a gift from America without the recipient having to pay such a large duty?

Mr. Dalton: I should be very happy to discuss this question with the hon. and gallant Gentleman. I do not want to detain the House with technical explanations, but the point is that either you charge the full rate, which is what we do now, or you have to examine each of these parcels separately and have a separate statement as to the saccharin content of each one. That really would be

an administrative monstrosity, as I am sure the hon. and gallant Gentleman will appreciate.

Camps, Cyprus

Mr. Sargood: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the Government of Palestine is to continue to pay for the Cyprus camps, or whether, in view of the rising cost, His Majesty's Government proposes to bear any part of the expenditure by loan or otherwise.

Mr. Dalton: His Majesty's Government regard this expenditure as the responsibility of the Government of Palestine. The answer to the second part of the Question is in the negative.

Mr. Sargood: In view of the Chancellor's reply, may I take it that Press statements to the contrary are untrue?

Mr. Dalton: Yes, totally untrue, as many Press statements are.

Consumer Subsidies

Mr. Collins: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what annual contributions towards the cost of food and similar consumer subsidies paid out of Income Tax are made by married men with two children and an earned income of respectively, £200, £300, £400 and £600 per annum.

Mr. Dalton: In the first two cases no Income Tax is payable, in the third £5, in the fourth £63 15s. But it would be misleading to relate payments of one particular tax to any one item of national expenditure.

Mr. Collins: is this not evidence of the value of consumer subsidies and Income Tax reliefs to people who have family responsibilities and a low income, and will my right hon. Friend bear this in mind when attacks are made on the system?

Block Grant Revision (Equal Pay)

Mrs. Castle: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in the discussions now proceeding for giving increased financial help to hard-pressed local authorities through a revision of the block grant, he will calculate his new formula on the basis that the principle of equal pay is going to be applied in the local govenment service in the reasonably near future.

Mr. Dalton: No, Sir.

Mrs. Castle: Is my right hon. Friend aware that if this new adjustment of the block grant does not take account of the principle of equal pay, it will only have to be adjusted all over again in the future when he comes to fulfil his promise, and would it not be better to do the whole job properly at one go?

Mr. Dalton: I must refer my hon. Friend to the very carefully considered statement I made on this subject last week, on which she asked a supplementary question. We must take things as we find them, and at the present moment we are proposing to revise the block grant on the basis of the existing situation.

Postwar Credits

Mr. Symonds: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will consider the introduction of a scheme whereby persons entitled to payments of Income Tax Postwar Credits may be given the option of receiving payment in the form of a special Postwar Credit issue of National Saving Certificates which can, if necessary, be held in additions to the maximum authorised holdings of any other issue.

Mr. Dalton: I have considered my hon. Friend's suggestion, but I regret that I cannot adopt it.

Oral Answers to Questions — TEMPORARY CIVIL SERVANTS (W.L.A. SERVICE)

Mr. Ronald Chamberlain: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will arrange for reconsideration of the ruling under which the Treasury does not reckon service with the W.L.A. in determining length of service and seniority of temporary civil servants.

Mr. Dalton: This question was the subject of an agreed report of the Civil Service National Whitley Council, and I see no reason for reopening it.

Mr. Chamberlain: Is the Chancellor aware that the agreed report of the Whitley Council on redundancy of temporary staff decided that those men and women who had been in the Forces should have their complete service with

their temporary service, and is it not, therefore, entirely a Treasury decision which has eliminated the Women's Land Army, and does he not think that this additional disability is extremely hard?

Mr. Dalton: My hon. Friend is misinformed. The agreed report was issued in July, 1945. It was agreed by both sides of the National Whitley Council, and we must reach decisions and hold firmly to them, otherwise our whole administrative system becomes chaotic.

Mr. Chamberlain: May I repeat the second part of my supplementary question, and ask the Chancellor whether that decision did not refer to men and women in the Services, so that it was a Treasury decision and not a Whitley Council decision that the Women's Land Army should be left out?

Mr. Dalton: No, Sir. The agreed report limited the area within which this privilege should be granted.

Oral Answers to Questions — SKYWAYS, LTD. (U.S. AIRCRAFT)

Mr. Rankin: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer why permission has been granted to Skyways, Limited, to purchase D.C.4 U.S. aircraft; and how many machines are involved.

Mr. Dalton: Four machines, belonging to K.L.M., to enable Skyways to operate on Far Eastern routes.

Mr. Rankin: Can the Chancellor of the Exchequer say why it is that a private company is able to carry out this transaction when the Corporations are not able to do so, in spite of the fact that dollars have to be consumed in the long run? Is it due to the fact that there is a close identity between this company and Middle East oil interests?

Mr. Dalton: No, Sir. It is, the Far East—far beyond the oil area—and it is hoped that this company will, in fact, make sufficient profit on their operations on this Far Eastern route more than to repay the cost which is incurred, not in dollars, but in Dutch guilders.

Orders of the Day — FINANCE BILL

Further considered in Committee [Progress, 16th June].

[Major MILNER in the Chair]

NEW CLAUSE.—(Amendment of Finance (No. 2) Act, 1945, and Finance Act, 1920.)

(1) On the appointed day Section five of the Finance (No. 2) Act, 1945, shall cease to have effect and Section thirteen of the Finance Act, 1920, shall have effect as if the following proviso were inserted at the end of paragraph 6 of the Second Schedule to that Act, that is to say:
Provided that, notwithstanding anything in the preceding provisions of this paragraph, the duty to be charged in respect of a vehicle falling within this paragraph which derives its motive power wholly from an internal combustion engine worked by a cylinder or cylinders shall be at a rate of five pounds per vehicle.

(2) For the purposes of this Section the appointed day shall be such day as the Treasury may by Order appoint.—[Mr. C. Shawcross.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

3.31 p.m.

Mr. Christopher Shawcross: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
I desire to be as brief as possible having regard to the great importance of the subject on the one hand, and, on the other, to the obvious desire of hon. and right hon. Members on both sides of the House to take part in the discussion, and to hear whatever the Chancellor may have to say. If I follow my notes closely I hope that hon. Members will excuse me, because it is for the sake of brevity. In view of the remarks which came from the Front Opposition Bench yesterday concerning your Ruling, Major Milner, upon a certain proposed new Clause, I hope that what follows can he regarded as entirely of a non-partisan, if not indeed a non-controversial, nature. I hope that when I have finished my remarks I may have persuaded hon. Gentlemen opposite that this new Clause is preferable to the one they had in mind.
The Clause is designed to secure an alteration in the law regarding the system of taxation of private motor cars. The present system, which is related to the

horsepower of the engine of the motor car or to the cubic capacity of its cylinders, according to whether the car was a new one first registered this year or an older one not registered this year, is probably the most absurd system that could ever have been devised. If anybody in 1920 or whenever the date was when it was first thought about, had sat down deliberately intending to contrive a tax which would as much as possible hamper and harm the development of the motor industry of this country, he could not have done better than has been done in the provisions of the 1920 Act and the later provisions of the Finance (No. 2) Act, 1945. However that may be, the unfortunate results of that Measure from 1920 onwards soon become apparent because, just as now, we find that the American motor car industry is in a much stronger position than we are. So it was then. In that first world war our engineering industry had devoted itself to the production of military aircraft in which it far excelled, as it still excels, the American industry, and it was therefore far more difficult for us to produce motor cars in 1920. Upon this difficult position was imposed this absurd system.
Whether this was deliberately done or not, the result was it acted as a very effective deterrent to the importation and purchase of American cars in this country. For that reason and for several others, the industry acquired a vested interest in maintaining it. I cannot think of a better description of that system than that it was like a vast framework of innumerable pigeon holes of varying sizes in which the manufacturers were enticed and encouraged to fit an enormous number of different models merely in order to fit their products into the correct taxation pigeon hole, instead of producing a car which was most suitable or desirable as a motor car in itself. There were other reasons why this system was maintained for so long, the British public, for some reason the origin of which I do not know, have been brought up to regard the motor car as a kind of luxury. The rich man in his carriage became the rich man in his motor car. The poor man could aspire to nothing better than a motor cycle or at most an outworn and generally unroadworthy second-hand car, which he was able to afford after many years of


saving—if he can afford it—of such diminutive proportions that it could hardly be called a motor car.
There was a further factor. It may be the main reason why this system was maintained for so long. Successive Chancellors of the Exchequer found that it produced a very good and convenient revenue, and they were never subjected to sufficient pressure to make any change until quite recently, so that it was maintained by the Government throughout the years between the wars. It was liked by the public, and those who could afford to buy motor cars at the prices which had to be charged appeared to demand a large number of different models because by skilful advertising they were led to believe that one model of a car was better than another if it were different from the other. It cannot be overlooked that the motor industry itself made a very good thing out of this. The profits were, in most cases, enormous, and far from reducing the number of models before the war, the tendency was every year to increase it. Thus it became more and more impossible to produce a cheap car—a car of a type which could compete with an American car at home or in the markets abroad—and that tendency would probably have continued had it not been for the war and what has happened more recently.
I do not desire in any remarks I may make to suggest that there is any inefficiency in the British industry—that may be so, but it is not relevant in this matter—or on the part of British designers of motor cars, for the cars and engines they designed were excellent as designs. Relative to the taxation and the purposes for which they were compelled by this absurd system to work, they were very good. They produced small engines of extraordinarily high efficiency, but they never produced good motor cars except in the very insignificant cases of the production of enormously expensive cars which did not have to bother at all about the taxation class into which they would be fitted. By and large, it is true to say that most of the motor cars produced at anything like a low price before the war were, because of this tax system, expensive, inefficient and entirely unsuitable from the point of view of competing with foreign makes, particularly the products of the American industry.
It is pertinent to remark here that the American industry was never hampered by any restrictions of this kind. Apart from the advantages which they gained in the first world war, they never had any of these harmful restrictions in the form of taxation. They had this additional advantage that the total weight of taxation in America was, and still is, at least seven times lighter than it is here. That enabled the ordinary American working man not only to buy a car much more cheaply than a car could be produced in this country, but also to run it at a rate much cheaper in regard not only to taxation but to insurance, to types, to maintenance and particularly to the price of petrol. So it should not be thought that the British manufacturer in failing to produce cars for the motorists in this country before the war was hampered entirely by this taxation system; there were other factors having, if not an equally important, at any rate, a great effect. It has also to be observed that it was not found that even this system of taxation was enough to keep out the foreign car, and, as the Committee will recall, we had in addition the McKenna duties which were required to provide further protection from the importation of foreign and. particularly, American vehicles.
During the war it became apparent to the Government that when hostilities ceased our export trade would be a matter of vital concern, and, fortunately, at that time my right hon. Friend was the President of the Board of Trade. I remember that he kindly allowed me to go and talk to him about these problems, although at that time I was a very obscure individual of whom he had not heard previously. [Laughter.] I am not suggesting that this is the result of those discussions. I mention it only to show how much he kept the interests and development of the industry in mind. Whether it was as a result of what he was then thinking about, or whether it was some other approach, I do not know, but at the beginning of 1945 there were discussions between the industry and his predecessors, which he continued on taking office. At that time the industry was unable to make up its mind upon what it really wanted. Some were for a flat rate plus a petrol tax, others wanted a different form of horse power tax on a graduated scale with wide steps, some


wanted ad valorem duty, and some wanted taxation based on weight as in the case of commercial vehicles.
However, they agreed upon a compromise and proposed to the Chancellor, and persuaded him to accept, what is called the cubic capacity system. Many people thought that was an improvement, if only a slight one, on the former R.A.C. formula for horse power taxation; many experts, on the other hand, thought that it was even worse. It certainly was worse in one sense, because its effect was to make the amount payable higher on the larger horse power cars than it was before, thus making it even more impossible to buy imported cars, if they were allowed in, but also making it more difficult for the industry to produce and to establish in the home market a higher horse power car of the type which would be likely to sell abroad. When one looks a bit closely, it is difficult to understand how that "reform" was passed through the House because, from the point of view of the export trade, it could only have had a Ned effect. It increased taxation on higher and medium horse-power cars, and thus increased the tariff against imports, but made it more than ever impossible to produce a car suitable for exports. I would respectfully remind the Committee that in April of last year I made rather a long speech on the Adjournment on the subject of the motor industry in which I raised a number of topics, and made some criticisms, many of them pertinent now, but which I do not wish to repeat. They were all proved correct. Just about that time there was appointed the Motor Industry Advisory Council, a kind of working party for the motor industry. Recently, that Council has made a report to the Government who, unfortunately, have refused to publish it, so the Committee is not aware of its contents. However, because a public statement has been made, we know that the manufacturers are now unanimous in. requiring a change of taxation of the sort suggested in this new Clause which will provide for a flat rate. The only fear, I hope, in the Chancellor's mind may be that although they are unanimous at the moment, they will again change their minds in the future.
3.45 P.m.
When I first raised this Question in the House, I ventured to point out that the Chancellor was likely to make this reform because he is by far the best Chancellor that this country has ever had. I feel sure that, whatever the result of this discussion this afternoon, I shall remain of the same opinion, and I hope the Committee will agree that, whatever may he the proper limits of an act of that kind, it certainly was an act of greatness on his part to agree to re-open this question such a short time after he had received the treatment I have mentioned. I am sure there will be agreement that he looks at this matter, as he always does, in relation to any assistance that can be given to private enterprise and industry, with a perfectly broad mind and with no recriminations about what has happened in the past.
I ought now to refer to the details of this new Clause. It proposes that there should be a flat rate of £5 upon all cars instead of the existing taxes. It is obvious that that flat rate of £5 will not raise the revenue which accrues from the present tax. I suggest that the loss of revenue could be diminished to infinitesimal proportions if this Clause were passed, and an Amendment was proposed and carried on Report stage to make this apply only to cars first registered after the appointed day, that is to say, new cars. That the loss would be infinitesimal must be clear to all hon. Members because, for several years ahead at least, it will not be possible to supply more than a very small number of cars, it may be only 50,000 a year, for the home market because we must use every ounce of steel possible for exports. It may well be, therefore, that during the next three or four years the sum lost, if a flat rate £5 is applied to new vehicles, would be trivial—ten pounds has been mentioned, but it would not mean much more—which represents about £8 million or £9 million more if applied to all vehicles, that is vehicles in existence at the moment. If, therefore, such an Amendment were made, we-should have the same revenue slightly diminished year by year by a trivial sum without introducing the suggested increase in the cost of petrol in order to make up the revenue. I understand that 3d. has been suggested in certain quarters, but: that would not be enough; it might have


to be 6d. However, having regard to the recent increase of 1½d. in the price of petrol, even if only 3d. were imposed the probability, if not the inevitability, is that it would increase 'bus fares, delivery charges, and so on, which would be highly undesirable at present. One of the greatest merits of this Clause is to reduce the overall weight of tax on motoring.
I feel that I may not have argued this case very strongly because, having thought about it so much and spoken about it on several former occasions, it seems to me so obvious that it proves itself. However, I would say, with respect, to my right hon. Friend and to the Committee that this change will, by itself, do nothing. It will not produce the cars required for the export trade. It will do nothing by itself. Only the motor industry can produce the cars that are required for our vital export trade. In saying that, I must not be understood to suggest that this is not a matter of vital importance. It is. Without this change, I feel there is no possibility of the industry by itself producing cars of that type. Whether it is the real obstacle or merely an excuse does not matter, but without its removal, that will never be done. I suggest, therefore, that this Clause or something similar must he regarded as a vital matter and a most essential part of our export trade, by which we live and without which we shall die.

Sir Peter Bennett: I have much pleasure in supporting the new Clause put forward by the hon. Member for Widnes (Mr. Shawcross), and I wish to congratulate him on the very sensible way in which he has moved it. With a great deal of what he said, I entirely agree, although there are one or two points where I differ slightly from him. He speaks from the outside, with very great knowledge, and has shown that he has studied this question very closely. I speak from the inside I have no financial interest, shareholding or anything of that sort, in any motor car firm, but I have an interest in every motor car that is made, because my companies supply a lot of what is known as the "bits and pieces" for them. Therefore, this is a matter in which I am vitally interested.
I would remind the Committee that a year ago the Chancellor put a question to

us—did we want the old method of taxation to continue, or did we want in its place the cubic capacity method? On that occasion I devoted myself entirely to that question without attempting to deal with the question of the petrol tax, because, up to that time, that tax had been ruled out by the Chancellor's predecessors. It is quite incorrect for the hon. Member for Widnes to say that nothing had been done. We did attempt to get that tax dropped completely. We went to the then Chancellor of the Exchequer and suggested that it should be dropped. The result was that the tax was maintained, and the petrol tax was increased as well. People who have had that sort of treatment were not anxious to put up a new scheme and have it imposed on the old one.
It is not easy to get unanimity in this industry. We do not get it here, or in any industry, but in the course of years the motor industry has come to a unanimous decision on this matter. They are all agreed, the motor car manufacturers have agreed to the proposals now put forward. The motor cycle manufacturers have also agreed, with a slight modification. The commercial vehicle manufacturers have acquiesced. The user organisations has been campaigning for a great many years on this question particularly in regard to passenger vehicles, and, from reports I have had from users of commercial vehicles, I believe the majority of them agree. By and large we could say that the whole industry would accept proposals of this description, and the large majority of the users would also accept them.
To explain some of the remarks of the hon. Member for Widnes, we must go back into history a little. In the early clays motor cars had a very bad name. They were very much opposed when first introduced, and a man had to walk in front of a car with a red flag. That gave continental nations a start, and we were many years behind continental nations in our development. We worked hard, and by the early days of the century motor passenger vehicles were becoming increasingly used. In those days it was very pleasant. All one had to do was to buy a vehicle of this description, take out a carriage licence, as one takes out a dog licence, and drive it away without any number plate or any other licence. It was then decided to put a tax on cars, and the


basis was what was known as the "R.A.C. rating." The way in which that came into being was not sheer cussedness. It was the rating introducing purely for handicapping motor car races.
In those days, many of my hon. Friends interested in motor racing will remember, the engines were what is known as "square engines," a four inch bore, and a four and a half inch stroke, with a speed of about 1,800 revolutions a minute. When it was decided to measure the taxation on the bore only and to ignore everything else, designers got down to the job and designed round a fixed bore. Then the question arose as to what, instead of a square engine, could be done with a much smaller bore to obtain the same power? So we got the development, by means of lengthening the stroke, increasing the compression, watching the tolerances and increasing the speeds up to 3,000 revolutions per minute, until we got the very high speed engines of today.
All this experience was not lost, but was taken up afterwards by aircraft designers, and our designers of aircraft engines led the world. We then had a start on other nations, and designers produced small engines which they put into cars. The 11.9 engine was produced in order that it should be under 12 h.p. and the 9.5, to be under 10 h.p. That was the state of the industry at the time of the last war. During the period when we were closed down in the first world war, America did not suffer the same disadvantage, but went ahead and took our markets, and also got ahead with their enormous home market. Then the late Lord Austin decided he must make a small car to take the place of the motor cycle and side-car and the story is told that he made a chalk mark round the space taken by the motor cycle and side-car, and designed a two-seater car to cover the same space. He was soon told that two seats were not enough, and produced a light four-seater. It is not correct to say that those cars were not good; they were very good for what they were. For many years the Baby Austin had the best secondhand value in the world. That applied to many other models produced by the late Lord Austin. The Baby Austin was not bought by sporty boys who would drive it to death, but by respectable gentlemen who drove at comfortable speeds. The fact that they had the highest secondhand

value proved that they could not have been so bad.
4.0 p.m.
Then manufacturers went in for something a little larger, and they made the popular 8 h.p. car. At the outbreak of the recent war 80 per cent. of the cars in this country were 8 h.p. or 10 h.p., which ran neck and neck, with the 12 h.p. a bad third. Why was that? It was entirely due to the matter of expense. As the hon. Member for Widnes has said our taxation, based upon this formula, produced a small car which was cheap to run, because the expensive car was out of the reach of those with moderate means. Motor taxation in this country is, I think, eight times higher than in America. Before the war it was seven times higher. There, no registration fee is required. In America motor cars are cheap, petrol is cheap, ice water is free and one pays a lot for the rest. Motoring has been made very cheap in America. When speaking last year, I said, "Don't blame the motor car manufacturers." There is no conspiracy. They took advantage of the opportunities given to them. What would hon. Members opposite have said if they had not done so? The McKenna duties were not imposed at the request of the motor car industry, nor was the horse power tax. Of course, they took advantage of it. They would have been very shortsighted if they had not done so. For years motor car makers have been trying to get away from this basis of taxation, and they are in complete agreement today.
The result has been that the people have had the cars which they have been able to buy according to their pocket. Speaking last year, I said that the motor industry supplied the car that was wanted. An hon. Member opposite, who represents one of the Birmingham constituencies, said that I was quite wrong and that he bought a car not because it was what he wanted, but because it was what he could afford. To the dealer or the manufacturer, what a man can afford and intends to buy is what matters. The hon. Member referred to the people who had done well out of the tax, but if he looks back over the history of the motor industry he will also see that there were people who did badly. Many fortunes were lost, and many firms making big cars only kept going because they also began to produce a small car, and they


went on producing a big car more as a matter of prestige than of profit. The car was small because motoring was expensive. Those were the reasons why those cars were made, and made in large quantities, enabling us to get a certain share of the world market.
Now that we have begun to export these little cars, they are found to be suitable in other climates as well as this. I have come back from the Continent, and I wag told there that they like them for the same reason that they are liked here—they are cheap to buy and cheap to run, whereas big cars are expensive and they cannot afford to run them. I refer to Holland, Denmark, Belgium, Switzerland and the suburban districts of the Empire where doctors, professional men and people who go to golf, etc., find it convenient to have some cheaply run car. Generally speaking, in the great world beyond, where conditions approximate to those of the United States, these small cars are not the cars that are wanted. In those markets the 27 or 30 horse power car produced in America is suitable. The story goes round that our cars are designed for the home market, whereas the Americans make a car specially to suit the export market in which they are sold. The countries which hold that view are flattering themselves. All they get is the left-over American production. The Americans have not designed a car specially for their benefit. Of course, as the Chancellor and the President of the Board of Trade know, those countries which are buying these larger American cars are the hard currency countries, where we are working hard to get into the market, which we find it difficult to do.
It is sometimes said that the British motor industry ought to make a special car for export, and that if that cannot be done by one maker the manufacturers should club together to do so. Clubbing together is not an easy job. Apart from that, if we made a special car for export, and not for the home market, the quantities would be very small. America produces over four million cars a year. Some of the larger makers there make more than our annual output, which is in the neighbourhood of 400,000. Thus American production is ten times greater than ours. If British manufacturers, in a group, sought to make a thousand cars

a week, it would only be a small effort to compete with that large American output, and it would be beaten before it started. Take the tool charges for American vehicles as compared with ours, which, under such conditions, would be roughly one-tenth. A motor manufacturer here making a thousand cars a week will make 150,000 in three years. One of the large American makers will, in that period, make one million to a million and a half, and he will thus write off his tool charges over ten times the quantity of the British output. Tool charges to make a new car are estimated to be £1 million. So the handicap goes on right through the whole story. Mass production needs large quantities of supplies and materials. The Americans buy in quantities which keep a number of strip mills running continuously, whereas we have hard work to keep one or two going. The Americans are able to keep their plants running all the year round because of these large quantities.
I think I have shown that the suggestion that they make a special motor car for the export trade is not valid. Therefore, the problem is to produce a car larger than the present one, and bring it within the means of the home user, and so get a larger car used in this country, in larger quantities, with the small car fading out and the larger taking its place, that car to be sold overseas and in quantity, instead of in eights and tens. Price and quantity go hand in hand. The car about which I am speaking will fill the gap in the market overseas between the small car sold there with great effort, and the big American car, which in many markets is thought to be too large. The Americans have not so far introduced that smaller car, because they like big cars and ostentation, which seem to please them. They do not like to move into a smaller house or to have a smaller car. We understand that. We have that feeling in other directions.
If we could adopt the proposals of the hon. Member, and completely divorce design from taxation we should then get a car developing. It will not happen overnight, because it takes two is three years from the time one starts to the time the motorcar is produced. That is what the Americans say. We are a little more nimble off the mark than they are, and if the Chancellor can see his way to


accept this proposition our manufacturers will get to work, and within a shorter time than three years we should have these cars being produced, because the public want them, and we believe that they would come within the reach of the public pocket. I believe that the Chancellor has a chance to do something for the nation. Years ago there was a tax on windows. What would have happened if some Chancellor had not repeated that tax? We should have had architects designing houses with the idea of that taxation in their minds, and restricting the amount of light entering the building. We ask that designers should be allowed to design according to the vehicle that is wanted. Let them produce such vehicles in quantity. I believe that if that is done the purchaser will have the larger car he needs, and will be able to regulate his mileage according to his pocket.
I must mention the motor cycle. Instead of a standard tax the motor cycle industry asks that the taxation should be 20S. for engines over 200 c.c. and 10s. for light-weights. I would like to support that. When Lord Snowden made a concession years ago to the lightweight motor car, he thought he was doing some good, but it handicapped the motor assisted pedal cycle. I would like to see that vehicle freed from all taxation. When I see men toiling to work pushing pedals, I often think that if they could have a strong auxiliary motor to save their brawn for their work and to minimise fatigue, somebody would have done a good job. It would not cost much if, as on the Continent, they could buy one of these things with practically no formalities and take it straight to work. I make that suggestion to the Minister.
Under this scheme it would be possible for designers to produce the larger cars we need at the price which the British purchaser can afford to pay. We should get them in quantities which would keep down the cost for export purposes. It would give the motor industry confidence to face that day which we can see coming when the sellers' market will give place to keen competition. By the time that arrives we ought to be able to have cars of a design in between the small ones we have today and the big American cars which have a bigger field all over the world and especially in the hard currency market.
There is one other point which I must mention, and that is the value of the secondhand market. It is not quite fair to scoff at the used car. Practically every car that is bought is passed on secondhand and used by somebody else. When a man is buying a car in this country—this does not often happen in America—he bears in mind that he is spending his capital which it has been hard to accumulate and he thinks always of the secondhand value. I have attended motor car shows and chatted with people who have said, "I would like that car but, you see, when I come to sell it in three years' time it will have no secondhand value and, of course, I must have a car with a good secondhand value." That is because the buyer of the cheaper car, the man whose pocket is limited, looks at the high initial cost of the registration and the high cost of the petrol tax and then says, "I cannot afford that car. I must buy a small one." If hon. Members go on the roads at the weekends they will see that it is the small car, very often the secondhand one, which has the most passengers in it. Perhaps there will be a man, his wife, two children, and auntie, all in a little car which ought to have only two people in it. Yet, one sees the bigger cars rolling along carrying only two people.
One can sell almost anything in the secondhand market today, but before the war when one came to sell a 25 or 30 h.p. car one could hardly give it away. I was once trying to give away a 25 h.p. Sunbeam. In the end, I found the only man who would have it was a hackney carriage man. At the same time, a man I know had a Baby Austin for sale and there was a queue waiting to buy that. I would like to see the larger secondhand cars purchased by the man who wants to use it and to get a bigger pleasure out of it at weekends. That would be possible if; when the original buyer was buying the car, he was not worried about its value, and the man buying a secondhand car was not faced with an enormous initial cost before he could put it on the road. Most purchasers bear in mind the secondhand value when buying a car. The market would be completely altered if a tax such as is proposed was instituted. I must not go into those parts of this new Clause which were left out. The Chancellor knows our views. I think


I have said enough to show what the aim should be. We should free our designers at once from any connection with taxation so that they can produce the cars needed for the combined home and export market and be able to work towards the day—and I must emphasise this once more—when it will be possible to reduce the whole load of taxation so that we can develop in increased quantities these large cars and thus secure the export markets which are so vital to us.

4.15 p.m.

Mr. Edelman: I am glad to support the new Clause proposed by my hon. Friend the Member for Widnes (Mr. Shawcross) and advocated with such expert knowledge and valuable detail by the hon. Member for Edgbaston (Sir P. Bennett). I think we are all agreed that the fundamental purpose of this proposal, which is to change the principle of motor taxation, is one which commands the support not only of the whole of the motor industry but, I believe, of most people who had ever applied their minds to the question of motor taxation. The system of relating taxation to design is completely out of date in the light of the industry's current needs. At one time a motor car was considered a luxury or, at least, a vehicle for sport and recreation, fabricated by craftsmen. Today it is the product of a vast industry of vital concern to our export drive.
Because of that, it is essential that we should establish a divorce between design and taxation. There is no connection whatever between the two, in logic, nor should there be a connection in fact. At the same time, if, as I hope, the Chancellor accepts a new principle of taxation in order that we might create the type of car which will, at one and the same time, be suitable both for the home and export market, then indeed the motor manufacturers will be given the opportunity of doing what they have claimed they want to do for so long—to develop without artificial restraints a flourishing mass production industry which could be of the greatest service in connection with our export programme. I would add one word of warning. It is that in itself a change in the system of taxation will not be enough to give us the exports we need. In the long run that will depend on the new type of cars which the motor manufacturers evolve.
In the past, when design and taxation were closely linked, taxation was a sort of bed of Procrustes into which the designer had to fit his car. If the car was too big he simply had to cut it down. One of the results of that, as was mentioned by the hon. Member for Edgbaston, was that the very fact of these limitations helped our designers, engineers and workers to produce a highly developed type of engine and a car of specialised value, popular not only in this country but in many other parts of the world. That was much to the credit of the British motor industry. But today, now that the emphasis is primarily on the export market, we must obviously produce a different kind of car. Unless the form of taxation which the Chancellor introduces will have the effect of compressing the variety of models at both ends—in other words, concentrating the whole weight of the industry behind the manufacture of cars of between 14 and, say, 18 h.p.—then the new tax, if there is to be one, will have failed in its purpose. In those countries abroad where the Americans are sending the surplus of their four million annual production of motor cars, one sees large, high-powered American cars being sold at exactly the same price as British 12 h.p. cars exported to those areas.
I fully agree that there are countries where the small car can do its job more effectively than a larger car, and I think the reputation of the British motor industry stands very high today on the Continent. But the fact remains that in those hard currency areas where we have to compete with the Americans we are unable to do so because we have not got the sort of car, namely a medium horse power car of high efficiency to compete with the powerful and ostentatious cars which the Americans are producing. I agree with the hon. Member for Edgbaston when he says that it is impracticable to produce a car specifically for export at present. I do not think that that is the way to tackle this problem of the export industry. But one thing which is absolutely certain; the motor industry, if it is to compete in the markets of the world, must rationalise and standardise.
I would like to quote what was said by Mr. Lucas, who, I believe, is Chairman of the company in which the hon. Member for Edgbaston has some interest, and who was speaking on the question of standardisation of electrical components in


motor cars. Although he himself is a director of a company which has a virtual monopoly of the production of these electrical components, he most vigorously attacked the diversity and multiplicity of designs which the motor manufacturers require. May I give a few examples of this over-multiplication of different components for motor cars? Messrs. Lucas have been asked to produce, and are in fact producing, 68 different kinds of distributors for cars, 60 different kinds of direction indicators, 133 different kinds of headlamps and 98 different kinds of windscreen wipers. In the 58 different cars which are produced in this country, there are 45 different types of starters produced by Messrs. Lucas.
It is time that we had a simplification of the different types of components. Not only is it the case that, while our car manufacturers are producing all these electrical components, they are never going to have that system of a flow of production which the manufacturers of this country admire in America, but the motor manufacturers are continually going to get the delays, of which they are continually complaining, in the supply of electrical components.

Sir P. Bennett: Is the hon. Gentleman going to finish the quotation, in which Mr. Lucas explained that all that was ancient history and that the future was to be a different story?

Mr. Edelman: I did not want to do an injustice to Mr. Lucas and I shall look forward to that future which he indicated. All I am suggesting now is that we should push on much more rapidly towards that future, because, looking at the designs for 1948, it is quite clear that this future is not likely to be reached in any time that one can foresee at the present moment, despite the fact that, in the case of headlamps, it is hoped that they may be reduced to two types as soon as possible.

Sir P. Bennett: With regard to starters and dynamos, there are only two sizes, though there are modifications, and, if the hon. Member will read the whole of that story, he will see that it suggests that, while we have had all these things in the past, designers for the future are working on the lines of very few models and the smallest number of alterations that can be arranged at the time of development.

Mr. Edelman: I welcome the hon. Member's admission that it has happened in the past and his assurance that it will not be so in the future. I was very glad that, at the Press Conference at which Mr. Lucas explained this over-diversity to correspondents, he was also able to show a "Chamber of Horrors" of the various types of components, which demonstrated exactly how bad was the system of the past. The hon. Gentleman has very rightly pointed forward to the future, and I want to emphasise that, if we are to have a happier future in the motor industry, in which the motor manufacturers will, in fact, be able to capture the foreign markets which today, in very many cases, is in American hands because only American cars are available, we must concentrate on the production of the sort of car which we can sell in that market, and in order to do that, we must give up the old system of "batch" production, in which one set up a machine to manufacture 200 or 300 "off," and then reset it for another short run. We must think in terms of tens of thousands.
I hope the Chancellor will accept the new Clause, or that, if he does not accept it, he will at any rate accept the principle. I do not want to emphasise that it is now up to the motor manufacturers. They have, in the past, expressed a variety of views on the taxation which should be applied to the motor industry and now, at last when they have unanimity, or appear to have, let us hope that they will also achieve unanimity in the matter of production. They have access to the most highly skilled pool of labour in this country; they have preferential treatment in the matter of steel allocation; and, above all, they have the benevolence of the Government in assisting them in the export drive. I hope there will be no delay in changing the tax on the grounds that a flat rate will encourage the purchase of cars at home. I do not believe it is possible to dig one's spurs into the flanks of the export horse and at the same time hold on tightly to its mouth. I think there should be encouragement of the industry as a whole, and that, I am sure, is what the Chancellor intends. He will be entitled to go to the industry in a year's time and say, "I have given you the form of taxation and the liberty of action you have asked for. Now it is up to you to deliver the goods."

Mr. Eccles: I would like to congratulate the hon. Member for Widnes (Mr. Shawcross) on having taken a notable step. We shall remember this Debate for a long time, because this is the most important new Clause now on the Order Paper. I rise, without any inside knowledge of this industry, to emphasise the very critical nature of the decision which the Government must take. This decision has to be taken at a very difficult period, because the motor cars now in production for sale at home and overseas are all prewar models, and we all know that, in two or three years, the size and shape of the world's motor cars will be quite different. The question therefore is, when that happens, will the British industry have to shrink back into a protected industry supplying only the home market, or will it be a big factor in the world's motor car industry? This is an issue on which we can test the Government's sincerity when they tell the country that we must export or die. Ministers know the situation perfectly well. I was reading in the "Daily Mail" this morning reports of two speeches, one by the Paymaster-General, who, unfortunately, is no longer present, in which he is reported to have said:
If the production drive fails, food supplies may have to be cut by half.
The other speaker was the President of the Board of Trade who is reported to have said:
If we do not export enough, we shall have to go without on a frightful scale—a starvation scale.
I do not want to over-emphasise this, though we on these benches have recognised it for some time. The question is what are we going to do about it, and here is an opportunity for the Government to act—but not to act in the way they have done for so long merely by reducing rations or threatening us with a reduction—but to do something constructive to increase the production of goods in this country which can find a market abroad and so maintain our industries.
It is most important, in the changes to be made that the Government should not give with one hand and take back with the other. It is most important that they should do the job properly, and we shall look with anxiety to the Chancellor to see how far he is prepared to go to stimulate exports. The benefit will be in proportion to the generosity; of that I

think there can be no doubt at all. Does he intend to abolish the impediments which have restricted and confined the industry and dwarfed it into unnatural shapes? Is he going to place the industry on a level with that of other countries or is he only going to take a small bite at the cherry?
4.30 p.m.
I do not think any industrial nation has overwhelming national advantages in the manufacture of motor cars. I know it is fashionable to talk about the huge home market of the United States as an advantage that we cannot enjoy, but I believe that to be greatly exaggerated. It is really in the nature of an alibi which is used by those who have not been able to find the true cause of the proliferation of small and uneconomic production lines in Great Britain. The motor industry is not like the whisky industry in which Scotland has definite natural advantages. It is not like the cultivation of tobacco, in regard to which the Chancellor of the Exchequer has told us that we have no advantages at all. In passing, I would like to tell him that I have received far too many letters since last Tuesday to say that he was wrong.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Dalton): Has the hon. Gentleman received any of the tobacco which is alleged to have been grown?

Mr. Eccles: I have been told where on a dark night I can get it. Be that as it may, I think the motor industry is more like the moving picture industry where international success goes to the producer who displays the most imagination and skill.

Mr. Blackburn: If the hon. Gentleman will allow me, I do not think his point is right, because the motor car manufacturer in this country has to pay almost three times as much for his coal and twice as much for his steel as does the American with whom he is competing [An HON. MEMBER: We have cheaper labour."] I dare say, but that is hardly a matter upon which we can congratulate ourselves. It is generally believed by motor car manufacturers that we can compete in quality but not in cost.

Mr. Eccles.: Taking the factors of production overall, and taking into consideration the skill, organising research and


designing ability, there is no insurmountable handicap on the British motor car industry. I cannot see why a nation which can produce aeroplanes and electrical machinery better than other people should not be able to produce a better motor car. I do not think there is any insuperable reason why small and large British motor cars should not compete the world over. There is no handicap which it is not in our power to remove, nor is there any factor of success which it is not in our power to mobilise. As I see it, we have handicapped ourselves. We have of our own free will in past Parliaments laid upon this industry a burden of taxation which has crippled it, and when the Chancellor comes to make his decision about the change in taxation, I hope he will keep in mind the line from "Troilus and Cressida"—
Those wounds heal ill that men do give themselves.'
That has been the history of motor car taxation. I am not sure which has done more harm—the incidence or the total weight of taxation. It is not possible to disentangle the evil effects attributable to those two handicaps. There is no doubt that the total weight of taxation, as has been pointed out by other hon. Members, has resulted in keeping motoring in the rank of luxuries, when at this stage in industrial history it ought to have become a necessity of life. On the other hand, the horse power tax is responsible for the small size of British motor cars and the very large number of models.
I regard the horse power tax as having the same sort of influence on the motor industry as, from age to age, certain fashionable clothes have had upon women. That is to say, they restrict the movement of the wearer while giving great scope to the designers. It happens that the women adjust themselves to these fashions and, in the end, they come to like them. That, I believe, is the case with one or two of the big motor manufacturers so far as they have been affected by the horse-power tax. But, just as with these kinds of impediments in the world of clothes, so with the horsepower tax, the real experts know that if the restrictions are taken away health and growth will be greatly stimulated. I consider the total weight of taxation to be an even worse handicap. Every motor car purchaser who is seriously bothered by the tax has a demoralising effect upon the motor car manufacturer. The hon.

Member for Widnes proved that when he mentioned British supremacy in the highest range of cars, the Rolls Royce and the Rolls Bentley.
It is no good saying that we have achieved that supremacy because our home market was a big one. There are far more millionaires in the United States than in the United Kingdom, but the United States have not produced cars of such consistent quality in the top class. The reason for that is that up to the outbreak of the war, no buyer of a Rolls Royce bothered about the tax which he would have to pay, and so the manufacturer never had to take into consideration that aspect and he was not demoralised by it. He produced what he knew to be the best quality article knowing that his customer would be willing to pay. That is a lesson which His Majesty's Government might well bear in mind when considering how far it is advisable in the interests of the export trade to lower the general rate of taxation on the 12, 16, and 18 horse power range of cars. We should, of course, abolish the horse power tax and free the design. That is a common demand in all the Clauses which have been put down, but I think the right hon. Gentleman must go further than that. He must reduce substantially the total weight of taxation on motor cars.
Perhaps I might say a word about the proposal contained in our Clause, namely, to maintain the same revenue from motoring by increasing the duty upon petrol. We only made that proposal because that was the principle which Chancellor after Chancellor has propounded when suggestions have been made for a change in the incidence of motor car taxation. It is a bad principle, and I should be sorry to see the Chancellor accept the proposal. I will not now argue why the right hon. Gentleman should not raise the duty on petrol; the reasons are too well known to the Committee.
I wish to conclude by returning to the question of the export trade, and to emphasise how important the motor car industry is in the picture. Apart from British agriculture, where I think a very great contribution could be made, I know of no single industry which could make so large a contribution towards closing the gap between imports and exports, and the Government ought to consider the motor car industry as a very special case where they can do something constructive.


What can they do? They cannot give subsidies on exports. We have agreed with the Americans that subsidies on exports should not be a part of our commercial policy. I endorse that decision entirely. If all industrial nations will foreswear subsidies on exports, no nation will benefit more than the United Kingdom, and we ought to do nothing to weaken the chances of getting an agreement at Geneva, or wherever it is being discussed, that all subsidies on exports should be ruled out. But we have no agreement with America not to remove handicaps on a great export industry, and the kind of taxation now laid upon the motor industry is an immense negative subsidy; it is a subsidy in reverse, and its removal is a real stroke to be played by the Government.
I want to appeal to the Chancellor and to remind him of the history of this Committee stage. I looked at all the Amendments and all the new Clauses on the Order Paper and subjected them to the overriding test of their effect upon the expansion and efficiency of British production. By that test, we began well; we started with the welcome concession on kerosene, the price of which enters into the production costs of food, but thereafter the Committee will recall that the Chancellor insisted upon a series of taxes which, he knows as well as any other hon. Member, must in their effect be restrictive. That might have been good politics, but it was bad economics. The Profits Tax and the Bonus Issues Tax will not assist exports. Now we come to a great opportunity of abandoning restrictionist economics and doing something which is really constructive and expansionist. The country wants some symbolic gesture of this kind. They are tired of being told that the standard of life must go down and that the only way in which the gap between imports and exports can be bridged is by cutting the imports and making corresponding reductions in rations, or in employment, or whatever the austerity must be.
If the Chancellor were to do the really bold thing, not just put on a £10 tax on all registrations and raise the Purchase Tax at the same time on a number of models so that his revenue would be nearly the same, he could do a great

thing. After all, the average horse-power tax paid over the whole range of private cars is something like£14,and there is very little difference between £10and £14. What we really want is a first-class operation upon the motor industry. Hon. Members opposite have very rightly said that if the Chancellor made such a gesture then it would be up to the industry to deliver the goods. I am sure they would. I cannot believe that there is any industry in the country which is more ready, more on its toes, to take advantage of what it knows quite well would be an opportunity of salvation.
I end therefore by appealing to the Chancellor not to do this thing by halves. Let us have something which will not only put heart into the whole of the engineering industry of the United Kingdom, but will make the Empire say, "There is the Mother Country waking up at last. There is the Mother Country doing something through the agency of the Budget—which is one of the few instruments of planning open to His Majesty's Ministers—which show that Great Britain is not going to wilt and retire into its shell but is going ahead." It would have a tremendous effect on other importing countries as well. I am glad to think that this is not a matter of party politics. Hon. Members in all parts of the House support a change, and I hope that when we get a statement from the Chancellor it will show that he is not going to do the thing by halves.

4.45 P.m.

Mr. Blackburn: I do not want to detain the Committee long because everything I desired to say has already been said by my hon. Friend the Member for Widnes (Mr. Shawcross), the hon. Member for Edgbaston (Sir P. Bennett) and the hon. Member for Chippenham (Mr. Eccles) who made the speech which I more or less intended to make, with the exception of two points. The first is that I think he has got the difficulties of the motor industry quite wrong. Its difficulties are far greater than he has given the Committee to understand. The fact of the matter is, as I understand it, that we cannot hope to compete in cost with American cars in the near future. The hon. Member for Edgbaston will correct me if I am wrong, but that is what I understand to be the situation. Second,


I think the hon. Member should have mentioned the White Paper, because the White Paper told us quite clearly that unless we attain 175 per cent. of our prewar exports we shall fail to reach equilibrium and we shall have our rations cut. It is a most serious thing that the Paymaster-General should have made the statement he made on Sunday, that if the production drive fails, we shall have to cut our rations in half. Any cut at all in rations may well mean a decrease in production, and we may be in a vicious spiral, going down. I therefore appeal to the Chancellor to consider this. The White Paper has not only said that we must have 175 per cent. of our prewar exports; it has also selected the particular industries in which we can hope to multiply our exports, and in particular it selected the motor car industry.
Speaking from memory, before the war, about four million cars a year were produced in America and only about one-tenth of that number in this country, and therefore we face an extremely difficult situation. I agree entirely with the hon. Member for Chippenham that the skill of our technicians and the skill and hard work of our workers in the motor industry will beat those of any other technicians and workers anywhere in the world, and I also believe from my experience of them that those in charge of the motor industry are trying very hard indeed to plan ahead in order to face the cut-throat competition which will eventually come. So I appeal to the Chancellor to make the really generous gesture for which the hon. Member for Chippenham has asked.
It is no good merely recognising the fantastic mistakes which have been made in the past 25 years. It seems to me that the whole of this Debate has been like shooting a sitting pheasant, which I always understood to be not very sportsmanlike. I do not want merely to shoot the sitting pheasant—the existing method of taxation. I want to urge that something far more radical is required. I entirely agree with the hon. Member for Chippenham that the Chancellor can do a great thing for the people of this country if he makes them realise now to what extreme measures the Government are prepared to go in order to enable our export trade to get back on its feet again. It is no good merely talking about standardisation, and lecturing the motor trade on that subject. The motor trade is only too

anxious to standardise if standardisation can be effected.
There are the difficulties my hon. Friend mentioned, but I am not really thinking about trying to sell cars to America. Our export market for cars will not be in America. When I was in New Zealand and Australia in 1938 I could not find a British car on the roads. [HON. MEMBERS: "What?"] I am speaking generally. I found no one to say a good word for British cars. The overwhelming mass of the export market in New Zealand and Australia had been captured by the Americans, and surely that is a disgraceful situation. New Zealand and Australia are desperately anxious to buy our cars.

Sir P. Bennett: The hon. Gentleman is not quite correct. My own organisation keeps a very large organisation in New Zealand and Australia to service the very considerable number of cars that we sent there, and I can assure the hon. Member that it does not do so for fun. On that point he challenged me with regard to America. Of course if we try to copy an American car we cannot compete, but we can make something the Americans do not make, at a price which the world will pay.

Mr. Blackburn: I am very grateful. That is the point I was really making; there is no difference between us. I was saying that we cannot compete in cost but we can beat them in quality, and that is something which applies not only to motor cars but to a very wide range of manufactured goods. On the previous points, of course, I am sure there were very considerable numbers of our cars in Australia and New Zealand, but Australians and New Zealanders generally were then buying American cars and not British cars. The general opinion was that the British car was nothing like as serviceable as the American car in Australia and New Zealand I do not think that can be denied. Therefore, I say that our market will not be primarily America, but the British Commonwealth and Empire and other countries in the world. I appeal to the Chancellor, in the spirit of what has been said. to make a generous gesture now in order to show that we intend to do everything we can to get the motor trade on its feet again.

Mr. Digby: We are-discussing a very important matter this. afternoon, and we are discussing it at an


extraordinarily important moment. As has been noted already by several hon. Members, few of the cars which are now being turned out by the British motor car industry are anything but adapted 1939 models. At this moment it is most important that we should be getting ready for the time when the sellers' market ends, in order to be able to turn out the type of car which is required. The few postwar models that we have seen make it quite clear that great advances can be made even in the higher horse power models, in such matters as petrol consumption and general economy. Therefore, it is of the greatest importance that the question of the horse power tax should be settled in the right way by a flat rate. At the same time, it would be wrong for the Committee not to bear in mind that this is not the only factor in regard to purchases in the home market. The price of cars in the home market—and overseas, too—is still extremely high. The home market is much swollen by the Purchase Tax. In the past, insurance payments have been equal to the horse power tax as a deterrent, and that is another matter which may cause difficulty. If the Chancellor intends to increase the Purchase Tax in order to balance his concession on the horse power tax, I feel that we should be losing a great deal of what we have gained.
On this question of foreign markets, as has been rightly said by the hon. Member for King's Norton (Mr. Blackburn), it is important that we should direct our attention more at the Commonwealth than at European countries. Some hon. Members may have noted the extent to which in European countries our exports of motor cars are already falling off. For instance, the figures for Switzerland in March are interesting; the Americans exported 572 cars to Switzerland; the French, 562; and we exported only 282. I believe that for various reasons, including that of springing, it is difficult for us to compete on the Continent with Continental cars. I see no reason at all why, if we build cars with a bigger wheel base and a 'higher ground clearance, we should not have an excellent market—

Sir P. Bennett: It is not quite fair to talk about our exports in March, when we remember what sort of February we had, and that we were closed down. Of course the exports fell during March; but

they went up again in April. Do bear in mind that we were closed down for two to three weeks in February.

Mr. Digby: I quite appreciate that that was an unfortunate month; but in view of the Monet Plan, and the extent to which French cars were entering Switzerland in that month, I think that we are bound to take note of that fact.
I should like to appeal once more to the Chancellor to be very careful where he tries to compensate himself and to find that extra money. He will be doing an excellent thing if he puts a flat rate on all motor cars; but in so doing he has to be very careful not to put a deterrent on ordinary people in this country from buying cars, when they should be put within the reach of more and more people.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Dalton): We have had, not a long but a reasonably extended and most interesting discussion. I should like to thank my hon. Friend the Member for Widnes (Mr. Shawcross) for introducing this matter, and, as it were, bringing forward at this stage a discussion which would have taken place in any case, because, as I should explain to the Committee, I had it in mind to put down a new Clause myself before the Report stage was reached. This has given us an occasion for discussing the matter now. What we are aiming at doing today is, considering the pattern of the tax; we are not considering unchangeable rate fixed for all time, but what shall be the pattern of the taxation upon motor cars. In my Budget Speech I referred to a- proposal, which was then being pressed upon me from many quarters, that there should be, on the one hand, a flat rate licence fee on all motor vehicles—I emphasise "all," for reasons which I will elaborate in a moment—and, on the other hand, an increase of petrol tax. That was the most popular of the proposals which were put forward from a number of quarters of the Committee, and outside the Committee, from the motor industry.
In my Budget speech I said there were serious difficulties in the way of adopting these particular proposals. But I went on to undertake that provided there was no loss of revenue, or appreciable loss of revenue, I was willing to look at the whole question again—I think the phrase I used was—


in consultation with competent people who know the problem … "[OFFICIAL REPORT. 15th April, 1947; Vol. 436. c. 79.]
—and I have carried out that undertaking. My right hon. Friend the Minister of Supply and I have had consultations with the manufacturers. I, myself, have also had consultations with hon. Members of the Committee, some from the Government side and some from the Opposition side. From these consultations I have gained a certain impression of what it is that those who are particularly interested in this matter desire to see. I think I can claim that my right hon. Friend the Minister of Supply and I have shown ourselves susceptible to reasoning and to these representations; and we have tried to study the factors of the case, as they present themselves now to those who have given thought to the matter, and who have had practical experience of it.
I will not go over the speech of the hon. Member for Chippenham (Mr. Eccles), who spoke of the troubles arising out of the past, and the attitude of past Governments towards this matter, except to say that I, myself, have a pretty blameless record in this particular regard; and, it so be that I can make a bit of an improvement now, I hope it will be chalked up on the slate to me for righteousness. I leave that retrospective argument there. I am not responsible for what Tory Chancellors have not done over the past 20 years.

Mr. Oliver Stanley: thought the right hon. Gentleman was actually a Member of a Government which was in power for two years, and which never altered this tax?

Mr. Dalton: I referred to 20 years of undiluted Tory rule. I am not talking of that period when there was sufficient dilution to enable us to win the war. I, pass from that to the more serious industrial matters in relation to this controversial question. I was merely dotting the "i" in that admirable essay of the hon. Member for Chippenham.

Mr. Stanley: Mr. Stanley rose—

Mr. Dalton: Let us leave it till later. I agree, the past is deplorable, and we must make the future better. The main object that has been put before us is—to use the phrase of my hon. Friend the Member for

West Coventry (Mr. Edelman), which I cannot better—that we should divorce design from taxation. I will plead this, at any rate, that during the time I have had any responsibility for these affairs—whether as President of the Board of Trade in the Coalition Government, or as Chancellor of the Exchequer in the present Government—I have always tried, first of all, to understand what the motor manufacturers wanted, and then, within the limits of possibility, to give it to them. But they have been slightly elusive about it. I do not think they would mind my saying that. Last year I did carry out what they had represented to my predecessor as Chancellor of the Exchequer, when I was President of the Board of Trade under the Coalition, and was also interested in the discussions. What they said was, that they did not like the cylinder bore, and we sympathised with that. What they wanted was the cubic capacity tax. "All right," we said, "Give them what they want. Give them the cubic capacity tax," and we introduced it. My predecessor made a provisional agreement, under the Coalition, to do it, and I did it in my Budget last year.
5.0 p.m.
I thought that I was giving satisfaction there, if not to a unanimous industry, because we were not quite unanimous, at least to the majority view held in the industry. That is how the position now stands, and, with a view to what I am going to say, I should like to emphasise that. The cylinder bore is still the basis of taxation with regard to all private cars registered before 1st January last. In regard to private cars registered since 1st January, the new cubic capacity tax applies. That is the division between the cars running on the roads—they are divided into these two classes according to whether they were registered before or after 1st January. Since we did that, there have been further representations to the effect that what we really want to divorce taxation from design is a flat and uniform annual licence fee. We were told before that the present change would go a long distance towards divorcing design from taxation, and that is why a cubic capacity tax was represented by the industry as being better than a cylinder bore tax. Since then, the argument has gathered strength that what we really need


to do, in order totally to divorce design from taxation, this was only a judicial separation between design and taxation—is to have, as I have said, a flat and uniform annual licence fee—I will deal with the petrol tax in a minute.
The main object we must all have in mind is to see that the form of our motor taxation is such that it assists the export drive to the greatest extent. I completely subordinate the home market at this time, and for the immediate years which lie ahead of us, to the export trade. I am familiar with the argument, which has weight, that you cannot produce a car wholly for export. I quite accept that, but it is far more important, in the national interest, to export than to have more cars on our congested roads. It is far more important that the people of this country who want a new car should wait until the battle of the gap, as between exports and imports, is won, and that the maximum number of cars should be exported. Having listened to the representations which have been made, both by the trade and by all sections in the House, I am quite satisfied that the case is made out for the flat licence duty for all cars to be made in the future. So far as the effect upon future design is concerned, we can forget all cars now running. In order to get the export drive we desire, and to get the type of car the more forward manufacturers want, what matters now is the design of cars to be hereafter produced. So far as the past is concerned, there it is, good or bad, and there are the cars running about, and there is nothing we can do in regard to them. That is why the conclusions I am now giving on behalf of the Government do not involve any change in taxation for cars registered before 1st January last. They will continue to be taxed, as they are taxed now, on the basis of the cylinder bore.
What we are proposing to do, is to make a change with regard to all cars which will be registered in the future—the proposal I shall submit in proper form before the Bill reaches its Report stage; I am now giving the broad intentions of the Government—and the proposal is that the annual licence fee, as from 1st January, 1948, on new cars shall be a flat rate of £10. Five pounds is too little, and therefore, technically, I cannot accept this Clause. We do not want to have three

different types of taxation operating at the same time, and I will therefore make suitable provision, with which I need not trouble the Committee at this stage, because it is a relatively small matter, with regard to cars registered already as from 1st January last. The cubic capacity tax will disappear, and it will be replaced by the new flat rate tax. I am having the position looked into with regard to cars already registered this year under the new scheme, and we will see that they come under the uniform licence fee as from 1st January next. With regard to cars registered up to and before 1st January last, they will go on exactly as they are. That enables me to avoid the unpleasant suggestions that I should raise the fuel tax, which would increase the cost over a large field, not perhaps ruinously, but appreciably; it would be a new inflationary excuse for price increases, affecting commercial transport in particular, and it would put an increased cost upon people travelling in vehicles other than their own, such as buses and the like. In my view it is not in that direction that we should be moving. We do not want to raise any further, through the agency of taxation, the cost of transport—indeed, quite the reverse.
I am able to avoid the suggestion that I should raise the fuel tax by limiting the annual licence fee to new cars brought on to the roads as from now, and I hope that the Committee will think that that is a good conclusion. On the other hand, I must look about here and there for countervailing sources of revenue. It seems to me reasonable that we should, on the more expensive cars, ask at this stage for an increase in the Purchase Tax. After all, we want the more expensive cars, in greater degree than the less expensive cars, to be exported, and we would rather get foreign exchange from these cars than have them running about adding to the congested traffic on our roads. The Purchase Tax has the great advantage, which I have referred to more than once in the course of our Sittings, that it does not fall upon exports but upon things sold at home, and to that extent it stimulates exports, which need all the stimulation we can give. Therefore, in so far as a. higher Purchase Tax on the more expensive cars stimulates the export of these cars, it is wholly good, and if, on the other hand, it does not lead to their export, I gain a few extra halfpence from


them. With regard to cars whose retail price, exclusive of Purchase Tax, is £1,000 or more, which is roughly equivalent to cars whose price, inclusive of Purchase Tax, is in the neighbourhood of £1,250, I propose that the existing Purchase Tax of 33⅓ per cent. should be double, as from today, so that the tax will he 66⅔ per cent. This tax is totally avoided by all cars exported, and no one will be more pleased than myself. On imported cars of comparable retail value it will be similarly increased.

Captain John Crowder: Is it 66⅔ per cent. on £1,000, or 66⅔ on £1,000 and over?

Mr. Dalton: The Purchase Tax is charged upon the total price. We make an adjustment for the margins. The general intention is that cars whose price, exclusive of Purchase Tax, is up to £1,000, will continue to pay the existing tax of 33⅓, but where the price is over £1,000, the Purchase Tax is doubled.

Mr. Keeling: Can the right hon. Gentleman explain how the increase in Purchase Tax stimulates exports?

Mr. Dalton: The reason why Purchase Tax tends to stimulate exports is because, on the article exported, no tax is paid. If it is used within this country then the tax is payable. I should have thought it was obvious enough. In so far as cars within this range are produced, there is likely to be less demand for them at home and, therefore, greater incentive to export. I do not think that the point is subtle or difficult.
I would like to mention to the Committee the relation of the new annual rate of fro per annum to the existing rates. At present, less than 1 per cent. of all cars running on the roads are paying less than £10 per annum. These are mainly the small Fiats, which pay £8 15s. Twenty-seven per cent.—a substantial proportion—of all cars now running on the roads now pay £10. Those include the Austin, Morris, Ford, and Jowett 8 h.p. cars. Twenty-two per cent. of all cars now running on the roads pay only £12 10s. a year. That covers such cars as the 10 h.p. Austin, Morris, Wolseley, Jowett, Singer, Vauxhall, and Standard. Taking the two last classes together, those that pay £10 and those that pay £12 10s.,

between them they cover about 50 per cent. of all private cars now running on the roads. For about half the cars, therefore, there is not much difference between going on as they are and coming under the new arrangement. On the other hand, the position is more advantageous as regards new cars of higher horse-power under the £10 plan than it is now.
That is another justification for increasing the Purchase Tax on the more expensive cars. Over the next year or so—and I cannot look further ahead, as many other factors will determine what happens in the years hence—it looks as though the loss I shall incur in respect of the new cars—they form a slight percentage of the whole, but it is one which will increase each year—through having the flat rate of fro annually, will be about balanced by the additional revenue I shall get from the Purchase Tax. On the longer view, I, or my successors, may lose revenue, but it may well be that that will, be a direction in which they will be happy to lose revenue. All I have looked at is the immediate position so far as revenue is concerned, and we accept the position that the case has been made for a uniform licence fee on all new cars.
I hope these proposals will be regarded by all those who have studied this matter as a great improvement on present arrangements. I have gone some considerable distance towards meeting the representations I have had, both from the industry and Members in all parts of the Committee who have studied this question. I agree, however, with my hon. Friend the Member for West Coventry (Mr. Edelman) that these changes in taxation, by themselves, will not assure us of a prosperous motor industry and a substantial export. But I hope those who are concerned with the industry, who get their livelihood from it, and who have devoted their enterprise and resources to it, will be encouraged by the response I have made to their representations to go ahead and standardise their production more than they have done in the past, by giving us fewer types than we have had hitherto, types of cars which, under the new scheme of duty, will be more likely to get a good export market, not only in the immediate future, but in the years that lie ahead. I agree with the hon. Member for Chippenham (Mr. Eccles) that there is no reason why we, as makers


of the best aircraft in the world, should not also make the best cars, and I hope those concerned with the industry will make sure that we do.
5.15 p.m.
Having given a broad indication—I hope sufficiently exact to be clear—I will have this Clause drafted in an exact form when we come to the appropriate stage of the Bill, particularly with regard to the overlap between cars registered before and since 1st January last. I hope that the Clause I shall put down on the Report Stage will be generally acceptable, that it will be felt that the Government have responded to the representations made to them, and have met those representations in essential principles.

Mr. Henry Usborne: Could my right hon. Friend explain the precise reasoning which has led up to his decison not to bring cars at present on the road into the new scale?

Mr. Dalton: For two reasons. First, because I wish to minimise the loss of revenue. I should lose a great deal more revenue if I applied this new scheme to all cars. Second, because it would achieve no purpose towards divorcing taxation from design.

Mr. Oliver Stanley: I think everybody in the Committee will have listened with great interest and considerable satisfaction to the statement which the Chancellor has just made. It has been obvious from the Order Paper and the Debates we have had so far, that this is a matter which arouses great interest, quite irrespective of party. It is the desire of all that whatever is possible to be done to stimulate the export of British cars shall be done. The right hon. Gentleman has today made an announcement in principle, and we shall have a further stage when we shall have an opportunity of considering the effect of that decision in principle in greater detail. I shall not, therefore, attempt to delay the Committee now by going into detailed questions of any kind. I am not sure—and I hope the Chancellor will not think me ungracious, because he has done no more or less than he has been asked to do—that we are facing up to this fundamental problem. The Chancellor has

been asked to divorce design from taxation. 'That he is going to do. So far, so good. I understand that many experts believe that that in itself will carry the trade a long way in its drive for exports. I cannot pretend to speak as an expert. I do not share the specialised knowledge of many who have spoken here today. I know little indeed about strokes and cylinders, although with bores I am more familiar. Therefore, I can only put the problem as it would appear to someone who regards it with great interest, but with no specialised knowledge.
It may well be that the expert would be able to shoot me down, but I cannot think that the task of competing with America in the export trade of the world, in motor cars, is as simple as some people have led us to believe today. I do not think that it is quite true to say that we have no inherent difficulties. Although I am not saying that it is impossible to compete with America in the export trade, I am pretty certain that it is not possible for us to compete at all if, in addition, we handicap ourselves. I am, therefore, not convinced of the value of a mere alteration of the incidence of taxation if the volume of taxation is to remain the same. I do not believe that it is possible at the same time to regard the motor car as a vehicle of taxation and revenue collections and as a vehicle for export. I do not think the two things go together. At the moment we are still trying to run the two horses together. It may be that I am quite wrong and that the experts are right, and that even with an 800 per cent. disadvantage in the way of taxation on our side we can still compete on equal terms with America. But I do not believe that is true. I believe that sooner or later we have to face this fundamental fact that we cannot get export and revenue from the motor car industry at the same time. I am not going to prejudge the issue, or to say which is right. All of us, of course, want to get whatever exports we can, but if the cost of that, in this particular case, is the abandonment of a large section of revenue which has to be raised from other sources, and which, in turn, may react upon some other possibilities of export, then we have to judge the possibility of the motor car in comparison with whatever sources might be restricted.
I do not think that we have, in these circumstances, really got down to the


fundamentals of the case. I think that we are still maintaining in this country a motor car market as a luxury market. We are putting it outside the range of the ordinary man. The motor car will still be regarded because of its expense as the exception and not the rule, whereas in America it is the rule and not the exception. Therefore, I believe that we are postponing the decision which, sooner or later, we have to take—whether we are to look to this great industry for export or for revenue. Meanwhile, that is no deterrent to what the Chancellor proposes to do. He is meeting the requests that have been made to him. It will give us an opportunity, at any rate, of seeing whether the limited approach is enough in itself, or whether, sooner or later, we shall have to take a final decision one way or the other. Meanwhile, therefore, I should merely like to thank the Chancellor. Any details can de discussed at a further stage.

Mr. Crossman: Speaking for Coventry, I thank the Chancellor of the Exchequer for his statement. We heard a certain amount about what it might be in the newspapers, but what he has said is a great deal better than the forecast in the Press. In the long run, we all hope to, see the total weight of motor taxation reduced in order to give us a really flourishing domestic market. I think that there will be no disagreement on either side that, looking six years ahead, we may hope for that; but I have always thought that the urgency at the moment was to recognise the fact that our supplies of steel are limited, and we can only give steel to industries that can export. There is no suggestion at the moment of relieving the total weight of taxation and stimulating the sales of motor cars for the home market. We cannot afford to produce cars in larger numbers than we are now doing for the home market because we have not the steel to enable that to be done.
What justifies and makes the Chancellor's contribution so helpful to the export trade is the fact that when one compares the motor car with the railway wagon or the steel rail it earns more foreign currency per ton of steel used. I believe that the management and the workers of Coventry are prepared to see as many as possible of our cars exported abroad, and we are prepared to see a considerable period of time before there can be more

production for the home market. But in the long run, of course, the home market must be developed to help to develop the motor car industry.

Sir Arthur Salter: Would the hon. Gentleman as representing Coventry say something on this question which is the one that preoccupies me? It there is a very heavy Purchase Tax, such as 66 per cent., on new cars of the bigger type which we want to export, and there is consequently little or no home market for them, would these bigger cars, in fact, be made for export? An exporting country, America, for example, does not normally make types for export; it exports some of these types for which there is already a large home demand.

Mr. Crossman: I am grateful to the right hon. Member for Oxford University (Sir A. Salter) for raising that point, and I think that the answer is fairly clear. If I understand the Chancellor's proposal correctly, it is that he imposes the extra Purchase Tax on cars whose cost minus Purchase Tax is over £1,000. During the Debate there was, I think, almost universal agreement that the type of car we should aim at producing for the export trade was the medium car. The ordinary 18 h.p. car made in Coventry or Birmingham falls below the £1,000 mark without Purchase Tax. I think that the rate of £1,000 is, therefore, precisely the right one.

The Deputy-Chairman: The hon. Member is now making a speech which would be more appropriate when the Chancellor of the Exchequer introduces the new Clause.

Mr. Crossman: I was replying to a point raised in reference to this Clause. We have had a speech from the other side suggesting that the Chancellor was not solving the problem satisfactorily, and a justification of the Chancellor's attitude is surely in Order?

The Deputy-Chairman: We are now discussing the Clause on which the Chancellor made a statement. Any reference to what the Chancellor said is in Order but not to debate it.

Mr. Crossman: Any proposal designed to help the industry will help the medium horse power car. as the new Clause would. It will not deter production of


the expensive car, because in the case of the expensive car the tax forms a very small item in the actual cost of the model. In the present proposal, the revenue, on cars now in use is preserved and this will be a help for the Chancellor. We get a flat rate tax as the original proposal suggested, and we get, in addition, the promise of a slight reduction in the total volume of net taxation in the future. That is an omen of the future that we welcome. It means that a future Chancellor of the Exchequer will, in fact, get less revenue from the industry. It is on that point that I see an improvement on the original Clause as drafted by the hon. Member for Widnes (Mr. Shawcross).
But if we remove the financial shackles on the industry, which no one denies the Chancellor has done, there is a gigantic responsibility on the industry. There is more money and skill and manpower locked up in this great industry than perhaps in any other one industry. We depend on it for exports more than on anything else, and we in Coventry at least are fully aware that, despite anything the Chancellor may do, if this industry in a buyers' market fails to continue its exports, it will not be permitted to have steel merely to produce for the domestic market.

5.30 p.m.

Mr. Blackburn: Does the hon. Member think we are likely to have a continued shortage of steel?

Mr. Crossman: We are likely to have a shortage of steel for the next four years, before the Socialist reforms in which some of us believe come into full effect. We must, therefore, if we are responsible people, look forward to this. Within the next two or three years we must have a reorganisation of the industry, whose last excuse for not reorganising is removed by the Chancellor's speech. The hon. Member for King's Norton (Mr. Blackburn) said earlier in the Debate that, after all, price did not matter, we had quality. I would point out to him that even an article of quality has a price, and we have to compete in price with the rest of the world. Our 18 horse-power car has to compete with its American opposite number, and any one who went to the Geneva exhibition knows what we are up against. Our cars are competing against their

opposite numbers which cost half as much. I do not mean opposite numbers in horse power, but opposite numbers in the sense of which a similar class of customer will buy—for instance, the Buick compared with the Humber. American cars are roughly half the price for the same sort of vehicle. We have to face that fact; we have to have competitive prices, and they will not be produced simply by a change in financial or fiscal legislation.
The Chancellor has removed the fiscal shackles, but the trouble is that there are a great many worse shackles, which the industry has set upon itself and to which allusion has been made, which it must remove. If those shackles are not removed in time, we shall have heavy unemployment in Coventry. We shall have heavy unemployment if we do not get ahead with the export drive, if we do not improve our models and cut down the prices so that, when we come to the buyers' market, we shall really be able to compete. If we do not do that the Midlands will be faced with a very serious situation, and it is therefore with a grave heart that we look forward. We thank the Chancellor and everybody who has helped us, but we know that the real job is up to the industry. If the industry is not willing and able by voluntary agreement to put its house in order, some of us at least would expect this Government to put some pressure on the industry, in the national interest and in the interest of the workers, to put itself in order by carrying out the necessary rationalisation, without which this change of fiscal policy will be completely nugatory.

Mr. Blackburn: Before the hon. Gentleman sits down, will he answer this question? It is a perfectly simple one and can be put quite clearly. Is he or is he not in favour of a reduction in the overall incidence of tax on the motor industry?

Mr. Crossman: I thought I made that quite clear in the course of my speech. Of course we are all in favour of it, and of course we can all make speeches saying that we are in favour of it, in the long term. But in the short term the motor car industry must—and it has always accepted this, and has been extremely good about it—justify itself in terms of exports up to, say, 50 per cent. of its production. If we are to do that we


cannot encourage the home market. Lots of us want to buy cars, but we must be deterred by every method from buying them, so that they go abroad. That has been accepted by everybody in the industry. We all know that we will only get steel if we can with that steel make motor cars which earn foreign exchange and so enable us to buy the food and raw materials which we require.

The Deputy-Chairman: I want to make an appeal to the Committee. I think there is a danger at the moment that hon. Members may get entirely out of Order in discussing the Chancellor's proposals. These will come before the Committee at a later stage, and there will be a full opportunity for discussion. The only matter under discussion now is the proposed new Clause, and I hope hon. Members will confine their remarks strictly to it.

Mr. Walter Fletcher: In view of your Ruling, Mr. Beaumont, I will try to confine myself to the original Clause. As to what the Chancellor has said, I think I can say that we are all grateful for the step he has taken, but let us hope that his motto is not "One step enough for me," because the step he has taken this afternoon, like the proposals in the new Clause, forms only one of the small bits and pieces required to make up the new machine which we must create in order to allow the motor industry to run properly and get the export business. The first difficulty I foresee is a mental hazard. The Chancellor has shown this afternoon that he has begun to overcome the difficulty which lay in regarding the motor car as a luxury and not as a necessity. We have seen on several occasions that he used to think that the ownership of a car was almost a badge of shame. There is a great danger in that, because there is no doubt about it that in times to come the type of motor car which will be produced, in view of the limitation of steel, labour, etc., must be suitable both for the home and export markets. In consequence, it seems highly necessary not only that the incidence of taxation but that the general attitude of the manufacturer of motor cars should be such as to bear that in mind. Let us, however, take it for granted now that the light has dawned and that the Chancellor really understands these things, so that the point will not be lost sight of.
I think it is rather necessary to go back a little way to discover some of the physical reasons which have put the motor industry into its present state. It is no use saying "Do not let us talk about the past," because we must learn the lessons from it. I believe, and I hope the Committee will agree with me, that changes in taxation alone, whether in regard to its incidence or its total, are entirely insufficient to solve this problem. There are many other causes which have brought about the present situation in which we manufacture a type of car which it is difficult to sell overseas because it is not suitable there. Let us go back to the original sin, and I know I am in some danger in doing so because of the original sinner. The original sin was the alteration and the robbing of the Road Fund. If the money which had flowed into the Road Fund from the time it was robbed had gone towards making new roads in this country, we should by now be producing a car which would be suitable for export. The hazards which this new Clause is designed to overcome lie not only in the fact that we have not got the same type of roads which exist in the rest of the world, but also in the fact that we have not built garages big enough for anything but small cars. Therefore, we have a very long term difficulty in synchronising and adjusting the home type of car and the overseas type of car: It cannot be solved by taxation alone, it must go very much deeper.
There is another point of considerable importance to which I should like to refer. There has been a tendency to fasten on the motor industry at the present moment the responsibility for the whole of its future, to say that, because the Chancellor is making this one step under some pressure, from now on the motor car industry must make its own way. That is not so. It must be a partnership between the Government and the motor industry, with contributions from both. I would like to point out another important factor. Every hon. Member who has spoken has referred to the export trade, but the demand from the export trade cannot be met efficiently by the motor industry for several years, because designs cannot be altered so rapidly that the car we shall eventually send into the outside markets can be produced within several years. I have lived overseas many years and I have been overseas


recently. I realised the difference when travelling in a 12 h.p. car between Singapore and Kuala Lumpur. Incidentally, I have just bought a seven h.p. Austin, and I find it is very exhausting because I have practically to be forced into it, and the same is true of the type of car we are exporting today. The return journey I made in an American car, and the comparison in comfort was so much in favour of the American car that I cannot be surprised at the overseas buyer's attitude. As far as the British car is concerned, it has been a case of too much money chasing too little motor car.
We all talk very glibly about the export drive as if the choice was between making cars today for home consumption or making them for, export, but there is another alternative which is a rather frightening one, and that is that we shall not export motor cars but we shall export enterprise, energy and skill. Look what happened when the McKenna Duties were introduced and Imperial Preference of a sort decided upon. Some of the largest American companies in the United States crossed over the border to Canada and started factories there. In that country we have the greatest manufacturing area for cars in the Empire outside this country. It is clear that if the motor car industry is not going to have a great deal more assistance than this one item there will be a tendency for the manufacturers to go overseas and manufacture. This new Clause has provided—

The Deputy-Chairman: I am glad the hon. Member has come to the new Clause.

Mr. Fletcher: Perhaps I leave reached it in time. This new Clause by itself could not possibly achieve such a result. It is only one of the minor pieces of machinery. If we wish to make this country the motor car arsenal of the Empire, we shall have to go a great deal further than this alteration of a slight overbalancing from one portion to the other of the incidence of taxation. This will not produce a car of any sort. Our production of the peoples' car or the Volkeswagon—a word which has not a very happy sound in our ears—has not been very successful. If the Chancellor really wishes to see a people's car produced in this country, a car suitable for everybody through the redistribution of

wealth, in which he is taking such an active part, he must act on great deal broader lines than he has up to date. I do not believe that taxation alone can achieve very much. I do not believe that this new Clause, though it has been so ably yet modestly proposed by the hon. Member for Widnes (Mr. Shawcross), is anything more than the opening of a small door. Beyond that door there is an enormous area in which the Chancellor and his colleagues must work. They have to get in conjunction with the industry further opportunities for the industry to show what it can do.
Above everything else, it must be recollected that it will be grossly unfair and a handicap to the industry if in a year or two hon. Members on the other side say, "We helped you in regard to taxation and still we are not getting the exports." The changeover takes a great many years, the overseas organisation, the selling organisation and the spare parts organisation all take a lot of time. It has taken many years to get to the present state. It is folly to think that we shall get out of that state very rapidly. This step is a good step but it must not be just a matter of self-congratulation by the Chancellor. It must be a spur to him to do much more in the realms of taxation.

Mr. Shawcross: Might I very briefly explain the reason I am going to take a certain course? First, I should like to thank hon. Members on both sides for the very cogent arguments with which they have supported the new Clause standing in my name, and I should like briefly to refer to certain arguments with which I do not agree in case I should be thought to accept them. The hon. Member for Bury (Mr. W. Fletcher), who spoke last, made it more clear apparently than I had done that this Clause, or one like it, would not of itself achieve anything in producing cars for the export trade. He went further and suggested that what he wanted was assistance in the form of supervision and control by the Government of the motor industry. I do not want that for a moment. So long as the industry remains in private hands it must be for the industry of itself to reorganise and rehabilitate its affairs to produce what is required.

Mr. W. Fletcher: I think that if the hon. Member looks at tomorrow's HANSARD, he will see that I suggested nothing of the sort. Neither control nor supervision


by the Government was suggested by me, but that a new spirit of partnership between the industry and the Government had to be created.

Mr. Shawcross: I am much obliged to the hon. Member because I myself am in a somewhat difficult position in that respect. Some months ago I used some harsh words about the industry. In regard to that I feel rather like the Leader of the Opposition when he announced the alliance of this country with Soviet Russia. He said that he would not withdraw one single word of what he had said about Communism in the past, but nevertheless he was going wholeheartedly and frankly to ally himself and this country with Soviet Russia. I do not want any further comparison to be suggested except to say this: that so long as this industry does everything it can, as I believe it is doing, to produce the requirements for our export trade, we on this side of the Committee will assist it, but if it proves to be a failure—and I agree that one or two years is not enough time to judge it—it may be that hon. Members on this side of the Committee and this Party generally will come to the conclusion that it must, in the national interest, be taken into public ownership.
5.45 p.m.
The hon. Member for East Coventry (Mr. Crossman) misunderstood my new Clause, because he said that the Chancellor's proposals were better for reducing the over-all weight of taxation on the industry. I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman is not in his place at the moment, but that is quite wrong. My proposal went further than the Chancellor's and that was a matter which I stressed when I moved the new Clause. The hon. Member for King's Norton (Mr. Blackburn) seemed to be very despondent about the capabilities of the industry, and he seemed to me to be inclined to exaggerate the difficulties. It may be said that we cannot exaggerate those difficulties at the present time. I fully appreciate, as the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Bristol (Mr. Stanley) pointed out, that it will be extremely difficult, for a great many important reasons, to be able even in the long run to compete with the American industry.
I should like to give an example for the hon. Member for King's Norton which

comes from his own constituency and which may help in regard to this new Clause or another which will come later on. It is with regard to a vehicle produced by the Austin Motor Company which costs, without tax, the sum of £1,000. I have not seen it, but on paper it seems to be a type of vehicle that would be suitable for exporting. I ask the hon. Member for King's Norton and the constituency which he represents to consider whether it might not be possible, if that model were produced in sufficient quantities, to reduce the price by half. The quantities that are envisaged at the moment are so small that £1,000 is probably less than the cost, but if a sufficient number were produced it might well prove to be that it could be sold at a much lower price.

Mr. Gallacher: Is the hon. Member not aware that, in dealing with quantities, any industry depends for the basic sale on the home market, and it depends upon the strength of those basic sales whether prices can be cut down in the home and export markets?

Mr. Shawcross: I am much obliged to the hon. Member for that remark, because it reminded me of what I wanted to say about the home market. I think it may be agreed, as was pointed out by the hon. Member for Chippenham (Mr. Eccles), that the American market is four times the size of ours, though possibly that is an exaggeration, and three times might be nearer the figure. That is no reason, however, why our industry should not produce at least one-quarter of the number of motor cars for the home market. I know all the difficulties; they can and, I am sure, will be overcome. Finally, may I refer to one or two remarks made by the hon. Member for Edgbaston (Sir P. Bennett), who seemed to think that I was complaining about bad cars produced in the past. I thought I made it clear that I was not complaining, but, on the contrary, was commending the ability with which manufacturers and designers had produced vehicles in relation to the taxation system into which they had to be fitted. What I was saying was that taxation prevented the production of the type of car on which we could rely for exports. I do not think that your Ruling in regard to remarks about the Chancellor's proposals was altogether applicable to me,


Mr. Beaumont, since I am about to ask leave to withdraw the Clause.

The Deputy-Chairman: I am afraid I cannot discriminate between hon. Members in that connection. The ruling applies to all Members of the Committee.

Mr. Shawcross: Further to that Ruling, Mr. Beaumont, surely I am allowed to explain why, in view of what the Chancellor has said, I wish to withdraw the Clause which stands in my name and in the names of my hon. Friends.

The Deputy-Chairman: The hon. Member may mention it in passing, but he must not go into details.

Mr. Shawcross: May I just do it in the manner you have described and, referring to it in passing, say that I am sure that the Committee would, as other hon. Members have said, welcome what the Chancellor has stated in principle? I have already made some remarks about him which have been described as fulsome, so I will not offer any further comments on that score, but will reserve the comments which I would like to make—but which are now out of Order—for a future occasion. May I make this personal remark which affects my own constituency? It is often said to me, "Why do you take this interest in the motor car industry, inasmuch as you have no motor car manufacturers in your constituency?" My reply to that is, first, that until I heard the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for East Coventry this afternoon, I would have thought that it was a great disadvantage when speaking on a subject such as this to have in one's own constituency a very major part of the industry concerned. I feel free in these matters. On the other hand, I have in my constituency 100,000 workers, probably the largest—

The Deputy-Chairman: I do not think that the number of workers in the hon. Member's constituency has anything to do with the question under discussion.

Mr. Shawcross: I was just going to say that, having regard to the importance of this matter—and if you will let me include the sentence, Mr. Beaumont, I think you will see that it is in Order—

Mr. Stanley: On a point of Order, Mr. Beaumont; since I have an Amendment on the Order Paper which I do not propose

to move, would it be in Order for me later to explain from the point of view of my constituency why I put down that Amendment?

The Deputy-Chairman: The right hon. Gentleman would not do so knowing that it would be out of Order.

Mr. Shawcross: My constituency is typically a large industrial constituency. One of the objects of this Clause, or of any other Clause like it moved from the other side, is that the workers of this country shall be able to look forward to the time when, by means of the motor industry, we shall have built up a great export trade. Then they can look forward to enjoying the use of motor cars themselves. That will not be achieved by excessive taxation. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Motion.

Motion and Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

The Deputy-Chairman: Before calling the new Clause—(Mills, factories allowances.)—in the name of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Chippenham (Mr. Eccles) I have to inform the Committee that this has been selected after a great deal of consideration and some hesitation and that the Chair reserves the right of withdrawal if it is demonstrated that the passing of the Clause would impose a charge.

NEW CLAUSE.—(Mills, factories allowances.)

(1) Subsection (r) of Section seven of the Income Tax Act, 1945, shall be amended by inserting after the words "provisions of this Section" the words "and of Section twenty-nine A of this Act."

(2) After Section twenty-nine of the Income Tax Act, 1943, there shall be inserted the following Section:—
29A.—(1) Notwithstanding the provisions of Subsection (1) of Section seven of this Act, if an allowance falls to be made under Section fifteen of the Finance Act, 1937, for the last year of assessment before that in which the appointed day falls in respect of any premises the expenditure on which can be the subject of an allowance under this Part of this Act, an allowance shall, by virtue of this Subsection, be made under and subject to the provisions of the said Section fifteen in respect of those premises for the year of assessment in which the appointed day falls:
Provided that where, for the purposes of this Part of this Act, account has to be taken of any allowances under the said


Section fifteen made for any year of assessment before that in which the appointed day falls, any allowance made under this Subsection shall be deemed to be an allowance for the last year of assessment before that in which the appointed day falls.
(2) The preceding Subsection shall be deemed always to have had effect and such relief shall be given by repayment or otherwise as is necessary to give effect to the Subsection."—[Mr. Eccles.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Eccles.: I beg to move. "That the Clause be read a Second time."
I hope that I can explain that this Clause does not impose a new charge. Certainly, the Committee will see in a very few minutes that that is not the intention of those who drafted it. This obscure but important point need not, I hope, detain us very long. In my Clause I seek to remedy a small grievance that has arisen in connection with the Income Tax Act, 1945. The Committee will remember that Part III of that Act dealt with allowances which could be claimed by the mining industry, and this new Clause refers only to allowances in connection with the mining industry. Before the coming into force of the Income Tax Act, 1945, mining companies had been able to claim on certain buildings an allowance under Section 15 of the Finance Act, 1937, which was known as the mills, factories allowance. The new Act withdrew that allowance and substituted a new system of annual allowances, and by reason of Sections 7 and 13 of the 1945 Act a gap was left in 1946–47 during which neither the old nor the new allowances could be claimed in respect of buildings which fell to be dealt with under Part III of the 1945 Act. I believe it to be purely a drafting error in the 1945 Act, and this is borne out by an explanatory memorandum which was issued by the Inland Revenue entitled "Notes on Allowances for Industrial Buildings," in which it is said, on page 14:
Where in the case of a building that has ranked as a mill, factory, etc., allowance can be given under the mining (Part III) or agricultural works (Part IV) provisions of the Income Tax Act, 1945, any mills, factories, allowance will cease after 5th April, 1946 (Section Thirteen, Income Tax Act, 1945) and the new system of mining or agricultural allowances will apply as from 1946–47.
From that quotation it is quite obvious that the Revenue authorities were under the impression that the new system of

allowances would take effect from 1946–47, but as it turned out the new allowances do not come into force until 1947–48. I feel, therefore, that the taxpayer ought to have the option of continuing to claim the old allowance until the time when the new allowances come into effect. My Clause is drafted in the hope of putting this small mistake right, and I have moved it in order that the Solicitor-General may look into this point.

6.0 p.m.

The Solicitor-General (Sir Frank Soskice): You did invite the Committee Mr. Beaumont, to indicate if it was the case that this Clause imposed a charge. As I read it, and especially after hearing what the hon Gentleman has said, I submit to you that it undoubtedly does impose a charge and is therefore out of Order. It imposes a charge in this way. It would seek to restore an allowance which was hitherto provided by Section 15 of the Finance Act, 1937. The Income Tax Act, 1945, provides, briefly, for a system of annual allowances in order to enable expenditure on buildings and machinery to be written off. It then provides that in the event of a sale of the enterprise which includes the buildings or the machinery there shall be a balancing charge—that is to say a charge upon the taxpayer—in certain circumstances. That charge is made if the following takes place. It is made under Section 28 of the Income Tax Act, 1945, if the sale price which is received upon the sale of the venture exceeds what is defined as the residue of expenditure. Inasmuch as the effect of this new Clause would be, by reintroducing the allowance under the 1937 Act, to reduce the residue of expenditure, the consequence would be that there would be a balancing charge equivalent to the difference between the sale price and the reduced residue of expenditure if the expenditure was less than the sale price. I submit that that undoubtedly creates an additional charge and that the Clause is out of Order.

The Deputy-Chairman: I am satisfied that the proposed new Clause is out of Order and it must therefore be withdrawn.

Motion and Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

First and Second Schedules agreed to.

Orders of the Day — THIRD SCHEDULE.—(Purchase Tax— Intermediate rate.)

The Deputy-Chairman: It is proposed to deal with the Amendments to the Third Schedule as a block. The first Amendment in the name of the hon. Member for East Middlesbrough (Mr. Alfred Edwards) will be called and there will be a general discussion upon all the other Amendments to the Third Schedule. After the discussion has taken place, if necessary, Divisions on certain selected Amendments will be taken.

Mr. Alfred Edwards: I beg to move, in page 61, line 35, at the end to insert:
electric washing machines.
There is very little to say on this subject except that these machines, more than most domestic machines, remove the drudgery from the housewife's life. Of necessity they are very costly machines. I understand that unless this Amendment is accepted their cost will now make them almost prohibitive for any ordinary purpose—over £100. No one will think that that is a suitable price to pay for a machine which does so much to help the housewives. The purpose for which this tax was imposed was to save electricity, but the amount of electricity saved in this case is infinitesimal. The machine is normally used about once a week, and the saving is hardly noticeable. This is an Amendment to which the Chancellor should give further consideration.

Mr. Eccles: I understand that we are now having a general discussion on apparatus which uses electricity. Cooking stoves appear to be the only class of such machines which really deserve to have the tax remitted. I know that a case can be made out for a number of other machines which use electricity, but this is a very special form of taxation proposed by the Chancellor. He is not proposing it for revenue purposes. It is because we are in a fuel crisis and are likely to be for some time. On the other hand, the Committee know all the arguments for the cooking stove. New houses must have these stoves. It is impossible to complete those houses without the stoves, and it is quite wrong if the purpose of the tax is not revenue, but to deal with the consumption of electricity, simply to put up the total cost of houses.
I was sorry that when we discussed this matter on the Report stage of the Budget Resolutions it did not appear from the speeches from the Government Front Bench that the Ministry of Fuel and Power had provided the Ministers who spoke with detailed information of the saving that could be expected from the substitution of new stoves for old stoves.
After all, if the point is to save electricity it is very foolish to make it more expensive to instal apparatus that will cook the dinner at least quite as well as the old apparatus if the new apparatus is going to be more economical in the consumption of fuel. I thought that the raising of the Purchase Tax proposed was something of a panic measure, and that it had been done in view of the great difficulties we experienced in the early part of the year. I hope that when the Government give us their considered reply on all the Amendments that have been put down dealing with these machines which consume electricity, we shall have what I may call "a Fuel and Power reply," and not a "Treasury reply," because it ought not to be beyond the wit of the Treasury to arrange that in all cases where there is a definite saving of fuel the tax might be remitted. I agree that it would be difficult if that were to cover, washing machines, electric irons, etc., but I think the case is absolutely unanswerable in relation to cookers. If the Government would give that, I would be satisfied and I believe that all sides of the Committee would welcome the concession.

Mrs. Castle: I want to appeal to the massive common sense of the Chancellor of the Exchequer on all these questions of fuel consuming appliances and the remission of the Purchase Tax on a number of them. I want particularly to put the argument for the Amendment standing in my name—in page 61, line 36, at end, to insert, "and electric irons." I ask the Chancellor to explain to us just what it is he is trying to do in reimposing this tax on such an essential household commodity as the electric iron. I presume he is not going to tell us that ironing is an anti-social activity like smoking, for example. Presumably he is not going to suggest that it is one of those pleasures we have to cut out because we cannot afford it. It is something which we shall continue to do, and, therefore, the question we have


to decide is what are the best implements with which to do the job. Equally, the Chancellor is presumably not concerned in this matter with raising revenue because he admitted last year that electric irons were not a good subject for the raising of revenue when he exempted them from Purchase Tax. He has, therefore, only the fuel argument in mind.
I want to persuade him that he will, in fact, be indulging in fuel extravagance if he forces the housewife from the most modern form of ironing which is the most economical in fuel, namely, the electric iron. If one does not use an electric iron, one has to use a flat iron—if one is obtainable. It is not irrelevant to this discussion to say that if we are all driven from electric irons as part of this fuel economy campaign we shall be very hard put to it to find the flat irons to take their places. If one uses a flat iron, particularly in the summer, unless one is wasting fuel by having a large coal fire burning, one has to put it on the gas ring. If the Chancellor of the Exchequer has ever done his own ironing, he will know that placing a flat iron on the gas ring is about the most wasteful form of fuel consumption one could possibly have. Therefore, I want to suggest to him that he has imposed this tax again without considering whether or not it will achieve the purpose he has in mind. We realise there has been something of a panic over this fuel question. The whole of the problem as far as electricity is concerned is the peak load, and electric irons are not used at a time when there is the greatest pressure upon generators. Most housewives do not do their ironing during breakfast time; it is not done during the perilous hour between 8 and 9; they wait until their other domestic activities have ceased and then they iron at their leisure. If, however it is suggested that electric ironing has now become something which the fuel resources of this country cannot stand, then we are driven into a situation which cannot be justified by any of the domestic facts.
I ask the Chancellor to realise that the burden of running a home is becoming increasingly difficult. Laundry facilities are not improving to the extent we need if the domestic burden is to be lightened. As laundry charges go up, housewives have to do heavier and heavier laundry work, and an electric iron is an essential if they are to do that without an inordinate

amount of fatigue and labour. The Chancellor will not save fuel by this, he will merely make it more expensive for the ordinary housewife to buy what has become a necessity and, without saving fuel, he will waste instead the valuable labour of the housewife. I urge him, therefore, to consider this as a necessity.

Mr. Douglas Marshall: In following the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mrs. Castle) may I take this opportunity, because I may not have one again, of saying that I agree with every word she has said. However, I do not want to repeat the arguments which she has used but to return to the question of cooking stoves. Here it seems to me the Committee really cannot but be in universal agreement about asking the Chancellor to remove Purchase Tax from these stoves. I am sorry that the Chancellor is not in his place at the moment because I would have liked him to listen to this argument, but no doubt the Financial Secretary will tell him all about it.
I understood when I listened to the Budget Debate that the Chancellor gave as his reason for imposing Purchase Tax on certain electrical goods the fact of saving fuel. I understood that was the whole basis of his argument—not the question of revenue. If that is the case, what argument will he make now? Will he say that people want two cooking stoves in their home? In fact, the burden which this imposition will place will fall mostly on people who are setting up new houses, people who during the war have had to live in communities with their mothers or fathers as the case may be and now, in spite of the housing shortage, they manage from time to time to find accommodation for themselves. I really cannot see that the argument which the Chancellor used, that this imposition of tax was only to save fuel, can possibly apply to stoves and, if the Committee will have patience with me for a few moments, I will read an extract from a letter I have received, for it is put so well that I cannot improve upon it. It is as follows:
For instance, just prior to the Purchase Tax being imposed we had orders for one dozen electrical cookers, and you will appreciate that these orders had to be obtained under priority conditions, which meant our clients had to satisfy the powers-that-be that they were suffering hardship, and which enabled them to claim the priority. The position now is that, after contacting these prospective clients, nine of them have to cancel


their orders because they cannot afford the extra cost. In some of these instances clients have no cooking facilities whatsoever, the reason being that other people have shared the house with them because of the housing shortage whilst in other instances all they have is the open fire.
I trust sincerely that the Chancellor will look into this matter again and give it full consideration, because if there is anything that will save fuel—I am not a technician—surely it would be reasonable to suppose that a new apparatus would save fuel more than an old one which is getting out of date. For the life of me I cannot see why any individual wants two stoves in one home; therefore I support the Amendment in my name and that of my hon. Friends and trust the Chancellor will see his way to remove the Purchase Tax in this case.

6.15 p.m.

Mr. Gibson: I do not propose to detain the Committee very long, but there is one aspect of this problem to which I want specially to call attention. It was referred to in part by the hon. Member for Bodmin (Mr. D. Marshall) in his reference to cookers. There is, however, heat-using apparatus which must inevitably be in constant use in any house, such as the apparatus for securing hot water. I am particularly concerned because the imposition of the increased Purchase Tax will make a tremendous difference to the cost of municipal housing in this country this year. Hon. Members know that I have an interest in a large local government organisation with a big housing programme. This increased tax on cookers and water heating apparatus, such as water boiler and washing tubs, will cost the London County Council £200,000 extra this year, on top of the existing cost of the building of houses. That is asking rather more than the local authorities, who are busy with their housing programmes, ought to be asked to carry, and I make a special plea to the Chancellor that, when the time comes to reply to this Debate, he will take the tax off cookers and water-heating apparatus, in order that there shall be no tendency to save in the cost of house building by reducing what everybody has now come to agree is an absolutely essential feature in any good housing scheme.
In any case the fuel will be burned, because people must have cooking apparatus, whether it is gas, electricity, or hard

fuel in an old-fashioned stove. We shall not save fuel by imposing a heavy Purchase Tax on these goods. What we may do—and I am sure the Chancellor does not want to do this—is to encourage the putting in of less efficient and more old-fashioned apparatus. It is possible for the whole thing to be controlled, because one cannot get these goods without a priority certificate, and if there is any tendency for the matter to get out of hand, it will be easier to control it by the effective use of the priority symbol. Therefore, I hope that the Chancellor 'will agree to do something to relieve the tax on these items in the interests of good housing in this country, and in the interests of not imposing on the already heavily-burdened local authorities a charge which seems to me to be unreasonable.

Mrs. Leah Manning: I want to say a word or two about cookers and electric irons. I suppose all of us have pets among these Amendments, and these are my two pets. I do not wish to go beyond them, because I know the Chancellor has not a lot of money with which to be kindly. On the Second Reading of the Bill, we were given to understand that if we did not ask for too much, he would try to give us what we were asking for. I came into the Committee just as my hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mrs. Castle) was discussing irons. It seems to me incredible that anyone should ask a young married women to spend 10s. more than the 30s. which she has to pay for an iron, when she simply must have that iron, and cannot be without it.
When I got married, which was a long time ago, I went to my mother-in-law and asked her to give me what was then called a flat-iron., There are many uses for flat-irons, but there is no use for them today except when one is in a very bad temper, which is the time when one ought not to have a flat-iron in one's hand. It is no good going to a mother-in-law today and asking for a flat-iron, for the very good reason that during the war every one who had a flat-iron gave it to aid the war effort. People gave away every bit of scrap iron they had, and they turned out flat-irons which had been hidden in the cupboard under the stairs. It is no good going to a mother-in-law today, because she has got rid of the flat-iron. So the girl who has just married has to use an electric iron. If


by any chance she did rake out a flat-iron from somewhere, she would have to light the coal stove or the electric stove and put it on the hotplate—and there is no more wasteful method of using heat that I can think of—or she would have to put it on the gas ring. Ironing is very often done at odd times of the day, and not during the time of the peak load. Very often it is done before breakfast, because it is a hot job. My hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn and I iron all our "smalls" at home, because we would have nothing left if we sent them to laundries. They would pull them to pieces in the wash and we would be in a very difficult situation.

The Deputy-Chairman: I think the hon. Lady is going a little too far.

Mrs. Manning: I certainly will not wander too far. The Debate was a bit dreary, and I thought I would make it more amusing. Many hon. Members wish to speak about cookers, and perhaps my hon. Friend the Member for Kennington (Mr. Gibson), who is chairman of a great housing committee, knows more about that than I do. I am sorry the Chancellor was not present during my speech, but perhaps the Financial Secretary will tell him what has been said, and he will soften his heart to those young wives, whom I am sure he loves.

Mr. Beverley Baxter: [he Chancellor has returned. and we are glad to see him back.

Mr. Dalton: What is that?

Mr. Baxter: We are glad to see the Chancellor back. He is a very courteous Minister, and when he does go away for a few minutes we miss him.

Mr. Gallacher: On a point of Order, Mr. Beaumont, can you tell us which Amendment the Chancellor is now lacing?

The Deputy-Chairman: This is the opening chorus.

Mr. Baxter: May I point out, since the hon. Member for West Fife (Mr. Gallacher) who has just intervened is in the habit of making insults at the beginning and end of his speeches, he must allow one of us to pay a compliment to a Minister without being interrupted? I want to say to the Chancellor that in his absence the

Committee was most eloquently addressed by two housewives, who are also Members of Parliament. I trust that because they have been expressing themselves quite strongly this will not be denounced by the Chancellor as impertinent, or as showing that they are inspired by the Tory Party. Those housewives are as innocent of any persuasion by the Tory Party as are the Housewives League; the Tory Party have nothing to do with them.
I wish to deal with the Amendment regarding cookers. Where this tax is so basically unfair is that those of us who have established our homes, and perhaps some position in life, have all these things, but the ex-Service man, faced with the rising cost of houses and everything, has to pay this real imposition. A very important point was made by my hon. Friend the Member for Bodmin (Mr. D. Marshall). Cookers come under a priority system of selection; therefore, once the priority is granted, it is established that they are a necessity to the people who qualify for them. Then what is intended by this tax? The Chancellor said that it was not for revenue. I do not doubt for a moment that the Chancellor will give this matter his consideration. Of all the people in the community who ought to be assisted, young people setting up homes under such difficulties and distress should be considered. This matter goes beyond party divisions. I have had a great many letters on the subject, and I hope the Chancellor will consider the matter.

Mr. Asterley Jones: I wish to support my hon. Friend the Member for Kennington (Mr. Gibson) in regard to apparatus for heating water. It is a mistake to suggest that merely because more geysers and similar apparatus are installed, more gas will be used. Many people are sharing houses, and when one member of the household takes a bath a certain amount of gas has to be used, and for every bath that is taken another lot of gas is used. Therefore, it another geyser is installed, it does not mean there will be twice the amount of gas used. The same amount will be used not only for baths, but for washing clothes, washing up, and for washing floors—not to the same extent, but nearly so. I do not believe there will be a greatly increased amount of gas used for the purpose of heating water if more geysers are installed.
A coal fire or a stove using solid fuel is very much more uneconomical than a gas or electric geyser for the purposes of making a bath, unless it is in winter time. In winter, it is probably more economical to keep the stove going. I am informed that it takes about 5 lbs. of coal to produce the gas necessary to heat the water for an ordinary bath. Clearly, it takes a good deal more coal than that to start up a boiler and provide the bath by that means.
6.30 p.m.
Further, the thermal efficiency of these various methods is very different. The ordinary geyser, whether gas or electric, has a thermal efficiency of about 75 per cent., whereas the figure for boiling a kettle or a pan of water on a gas stove is only 40 per cent.; and, on a coal fire, in the region of 20 per cent.—it may be a good deal less. There is no doubt that the announcement that this increased Purchase Tax is to be imposed has caused a great dimunition in orders for this up-to-date modern apparatus for heating water. I am certain that in the short run, as well as in the long run, this will mean more rather than less waste of fuel, because of the use of these older methods.
Hon. Members have already referred to the fact that the cost of houses will increase. Whether Purchase Tax is imposed or not, this apparatus will be installed, perhaps not to the same extent as before, and it will simply mean that costs will go up. I have here several examples. An ordinary simple single point bath gas geyser, instead of costing £10 17s. 6d. will cost £16 10s. 7d. That is the effect of the tax on the simplest type. On the more elaborate types the increase will be more. Cookers show an increase of £10 on the simpler types, and £15 on the more elaborate ones. There is another point which has not been sufficiently stressed. The Minister of Labour has been appealing to women to go to work in factories. He cannot expect them to do so unless he relieves them of household work at home. If he tells the women who go into new houses today that it is the policy of the Government that they should have to light the fire for the bath and for their hot water generally, instead of switching on a geyser, he will be doing something quite contradictory. If he wants the women

of this country to work in factories to help the country through, he should at the same time see that work in their homes is made as easy as possible, and accordingly encourage the installation of these modern methods of water heating.

Sir Arnold Gridley: It may perhaps be thought that I shall very soon have no interest whatever in all that is involved in the maintenance of the electricity supply to domestic and power users in the country. While for an indefinite period I must disclose my interest—I am still a director of such companies—there is only a short time left now before we shall be divested of these undertakings, and they will become national property. Therefore, if I looked at the matter purely from the point of view of what concerns me, I should say that I need no longer worry about it, as the responsibility will soon be transferred to other, and perhaps more capable—or perhaps less capable—hands. We shall see in time.
I have in mind the thousands of new houses which are going up all over the country, as far as this Government can secure their erection. Those who are entering into occupation of those houses will have to be provided with many of these articles. We on this side of the Committee would be failing in our duty if we did not join hands with hon. Members opposite in pleading that the Purchase Tax shall be excluded from these absolutely essential articles which save the time and energy of the harassed housewife today. Speaking from considerable experience as to what amount of current is consumed by various items in this list, I would say that the Minister of Fuel and Power has secured his greatest economy in the sphere of space heating, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer has helped him in it by levying Purchase Tax on space-heating methods—radiators, etc.—which really are the great consumers of current. It is true that the item in the list with the next heaviest consumption is the cooker, but the cooker is absolutely indispensable in every household.
I ask the Chancellor to remember that the household has unfortunately a great deal less to cook in these times than it was accustomed to having before the war, and most of the cooking in the average


house is done on Sundays, when there is no industrial load. Therefore, the cooking does not cause the drain on power which is one of the causes that necessitate economies in consumption which the whole nation is now being called upon to effect. As space heating is ruled out, and cooking requirements are very much limited compared with what they were, these other items on which we are asking that Purchase Tax should not be levied are really the smaller current-consuming apparatus, and there is, therefore, not much risk in the Chancellor according Purchase Tax remission.
There are today a great many people who cannot afford to put down the money to buy cookers, washers and items of that kind, which are much more expensive than they used to be, without Purchase Tax being put upon them. Most of the supply authorities are today continuing their hire-purchase system. This Purchase Tax has to be added, and that will put up the hire-purchase charges, so that the unfortunate householders will be caught in every way, whether they have the money to buy the apparatus outright, or whether they hire it or obtain it on hire purchase. For the reasons I have given, and the arguments I have submitted, which I hope are sound, I would like strongly to reinforce the appeal of hon. Members opposite that the Chancellor should give his friendly consideration to this plea.

Mr. Sargood: I would like to make a plea to the Chancellor of the Exchequer on behalf of the local authority in which my constituency is situated. For a number of years we have been an electrical generating authority, and because we have been very progressive most of our houses in Bermondsey are wired for cooking and heating by electricity. During the war, we were the most heavily bombed district in London, because of our proximity to the docks. The result is that a great deal of replacement and renewal has to take place. We in Bermondsey have no choice; we have to replace electrical cooking and water-heating apparatus. Therefore, the object of discouraging the unnecessary purchase of this electrical equipment does not apply in Bermondsey. It simply means that the extra tax will be paid by people who have already borne more than their fair share of the burden. I ask the

Chancellor to give consideration to the point of view of Bermondsey.

Mr. Osborne: Two local authorities in my area asked me to support the plea that the tax should be removed from these articles. I do so in answer to their request. My hon. Friend the Member for Chippenham (Mr. Eccles) made a point to which I think the Chancellor should pay heed. He said that the answer to this Debate ought to be made not on a Treasury basis but on a fuel and power basis, because the consideration for imposing this tax is one of fuel and power and not of finance. Therefore, instead of the Chancellor we should have the Minister of Fuel and Power to give us an answer. What astonishes me is that apparently the Government are accepting the fact that we shall be short of fuel and power for a long time to come. They appear to accept the fact that shortages will continue and that—at least not this year and perhaps not next year—nationalisation of fuel and power is not going to produce the results. To me that is a very dismal picture. I am rather surprised that hon. Members opposite who have pinned their faith for a long time to the nationalisation of the mines, should now sit down and accept the dismal picture and agree that the position is not going to improve.
The Chancellor's colleague, the Minister of Labour, has been appealing for women to come back into industry to help with our production drive. When the Chancellor himself was President of the Board of Trade during the war he knew, and he must know today, that in the boot and shoe and the hosiery industries, of which I have some knowledge, we are short of women operatives to the number of tens of thousands. The Government are asking women, especially young married women, to come back into industry. It is grossly wrong to ask these girls to leave their young children in day nurseries and then take them in the evening to a home where they are not able to get the things required as cheaply as they ought to be. Yesterday the President of the Board of Trade made an appeal that the day nurseries which had been closed should be re-opened, in order to encourage young married people to come back to industry to assist the output drive. I hope the Chancellor will bear in mind that very important point.
Unless we have bigger and bigger output, and unless the Government in one way or another are prepared to help us to get that output, these schemes of equalising what we have got will lead us into deeper and deeper poverty. If we are to expect these young girls to help us—and in the boot and shoe and the hosiery industries we cannot do without them—we must do something to help them. Unless they come back to industry, clothes rationing will not end quickly. We should enable these people to buy the labour-saving devices they require at home as cheaply as possible.

Mr. Gallacher: I had a discussion recently with the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy (Mr. Hubbard) and representatives of one of the local authorities in my constituency, on the question of the cost of equipment for new houses. The local authorities are facing a very difficult situation. In fact, this particular authority has decided that it will have to increase the rents of the houses because of the high cost. But everyone knows, 20 years ago one could get loans at 5 per cent. to build houses. Now, one can get loans from the Chancellor at 2½ per cent. but the houses cost more than double. Therefore, the value of the cheap rate of interest has gone. Earlier this afternoon we discussed a new Clause and our Debate was directed towards the very important question of experts. Everybody recognises the importance of that. Here, is a question of equal if not greater importance. I refer to the cutting down of prices. That will have a very big effect on the situation in this country. There is no other field where the necessity for cutting prices is as great as it is in connection with houses.
6.45 p.m.
If we accept the suggestion of the Government in this case, instead of cutting prices we shall be increasing them for necessary equipment for houses. I happen to be one who on occasions has used a flat iron—not for lethal purposes. On rare occasions, I have used an electric iron. I know the great advantage to the housewife when she can use an electric iron which saves labour and fuel. I have not been an actual participant, but very often I have watched the operation of an electric or a gas cooker. I know what a very big saving is involved there from the

point of view of the housewife. In the old type of house which I occupied in my earlier days, all the cooking was done on a coal fire. The cooking which is now done on an electric stove or a gas cooker results in a tremendous saving in fuel. Every encouragement should be given to the housewife to make the fullest use of this equipment.
Any local authority building new houses puts in an electric or a gas cooker and provides many other gadgets in order to make the work of the housewife as light and as effective as possible. In view of the urgent necessity for bringing down the cost of houses, I ask the Chancellor to consider this matter seriously. In my own area a considerable increase in rents is taking place, and other local authorities throughout Scotland may follow the lead. I ask the Chancellor when replying to this Debate to bear in mind the necessity for doing something to reduce the very high cost of houses with a view to preventing the rents going up to such an extent that the people who occupy the houses have to sacrifice the necessities of life in order to pay the rents.

Mr. Bramall: I would not have spoken at all in view of the eloquence with which the arguments on this point have already been advanced, did I not claim a sort of parenthood for this Amendment. I was the first hon. Member to raise this question during Report stage of the Budget Resolutions and I also put down an Amendment which had the certain advantage that it was an all-party Amendment, having been signed by a number of hon. Members including the hon. Member for South Aberdeen (Lady Grant). The arguments have already been quoted at some considerable length. I wish to apply myself to one point made by my, right hon. Friend the Financial Secretary in the Debate on the Report stage of the Budget Resolutions. He laid stress on the necessity for economy and on the need not to overload the generating plant more strongly than on the need for saving fuel. I suggest that rules out any suggestion that a tax should be raised on gas stoves. It is ludricrous to say that because we want to save electricity generating plant we should tax gas stoves.
Even accepting the point that we must save the generating plant—and everybody agrees upon the need for a Purchase Tax on space heaters—I would confine my


claims to the claims of the cookers for the simple reason that the demand for gas and electric cookers is, in economic jargon, a completely inelastic demand. Everybody must have one cooker. Virtually nobody has more than one cooker. People do not buy a cooker to stand it in a corner of the room as an ornament. They buy it because they have nothing else with which they can cook. Since a new home must have a cooker, everyone who is entering a new house must buy one. The hon. Member for Bodmin (Mr. D. Marshall) mentioned that nine of the dozen customers of the authority which had written to him had withdrawn their orders. I was surprised at that statement and I was rather sorry that he gave that point to the Chancellor. His constituency, I imagine, is mainly rural, where a good many of the cottages will have the same old-fashioned type of cooking apparatus.
Speaking for my constituency, and also, I imagine for the constituency of the hon. Member for West Bermondsey (Mr. Sargood), which are 95 per cent. urban, there can be no question but that the people will have to pay, however much the prices go up. The houses there are either wired for electricity or supplied with gas, and, normally, there is no choice of transferring from the one to the other, even if the Chancellor decided that it was desirable to have gas rather than electricity. They are fitted with one type or the other, and the people concerned have to have what goes with the house.
The numerous letters which I have had all lead to the same conclusion—that the person who is already hard hit, the person who has been bombed out, and the people married during the war and those people at present living with their parents or relatives, are placed in a position of having to pay extra taxation when there is the possibility of having a home of their own. At the present time that is something which, from the social point of view, we must all consider extremely undesirable. I think the Chancellor will get a very poor economic return because he will not get a reduction in demand, since it is an inelastic demand. It is merely placing a heavy additional tax upon the building of houses, and I would like to associate myself with the words of the hon. Member for West Fife (Mr. Gallacher) when he said that one of the

most important sectors in which we have to bring down prices is in that of house building. I add my voice to the pleas which have been made in asking the Chancellor to reconsider the position.

Captain Crookshank: May I appeal to the Chancellor to intervene early in the Debate as he is obviously going to make a concession? I deduce that fact because word has obviously gone round to many hon. Members opposite who are usually so superb in their observation of the ordinance of silence on the Finance Bill, but who are now getting up all over the place and making speeches obviously to impress their constituents that it was they and only they who secured the concession. I think they are right, because no case has been made out by the Chancellor for cookers at all. Hon. Members on both sides of the House made that absolutely clear, and, indeed, if the suggestion is not going to be adopted, I hope that the Chancellor will give us some estimate of how much electric current will be saved. It is rather like the case of the Tobacco Duty. If, at any rate, the Chancellor does not get the saving in currency, he will get the money out of the Purchase Tax, and similarly if he does not save currency on the imports of tobacco, he will get it out of the duty. It is a new technique, and I do not think it is a good technique. I think that, as it is quite clear that the Chancellor is going to make a concession, it would make us all very much happier if he would do it now instead of waiting another half-hour.

Mr. Dalton: It is not often that the Opposition appeal to me to curtail the Debate. I thought they were well set for a long Sitting, but I am always willing to respond to any suggestion. Let us not forget why these taxes were originally imposed. They were put on because we were assured that too much electricity and gas was being consumed, and having regard to what was called the fuel crisis, but which was, perhaps, more accurately described as the temporary interruption of electricity supplies, it would be desirable to impose a brake, which hitherto had not been imposed, on the increasing acquisition of these electricity-using and, to a less extent, gas-using, implements. That was the broad ground for putting on these various articles a new Purchase Tax of 66⅔ per cent. It was, as I explained in


my Budget speech, a quite deliberate reversal of a policy which I had recommended and which the House had unanimously accepted earlier on, exempting these articles wholly from the Purchase Tax. We must still be mindful of the need not to waste electricity. We must not get into the habit of saying that, because of the good weather and the fact that, for the moment, everybody is being supplied that there is no longer any need to save. That would be very improvident. At the same time, after the comprehensive character of the Schedule had been apprehended, there did, of course, begin to emerge various doubts and hesitations, some on one point and some on another, and the local authorities got busy, and they have many admirable spokesmen in this House.
I must make quite clear that we cannot agree to any discrimination in the Purchase Tax. We cannot have the Purchase Tax on an article varied in accordance with whether it is placed in a local authority house, or with the way in which it is to be used by one consumer or another. We have to tax the thing itself, not the way in which it may be used. Our control is at the wholesale stage, higher up the stream, and that is a long way from the level of the retail purchaser. I must point out that it is administratively impossible to accept any Amendment to the Purchase Tax which seeks to differentiate according to the use to which such articles are put. We cannot do it in that way. The question, therefore, is how far can we go in reducing the wide field of this tax now that it has served a propagandist and educational purpose, and in what way we can make some concessions for which a strong case has been put by many hon. Members—that would not lead to waste of gas or electricity in the wider use of these articles. There are certain things which I think are very clear at either end of the scale and there are other things which are intermediate. It is essential to retain the Purchase Tax on space heaters—gas and electricity fires and so on—because it is here that most waste occurs, and where people are most improvident. All of us have done it, and we can all say that we have sinned over this. If we are to prevent the waste of electricity and gas—and I do not want to distinguish between them, as we must hold the balance quite level—I think there

is a very clear case for making no concession here, but for retaining this tax where it stands.
7.0 p.m.
I am very doubtful, in the case of water heaters, which was put by the hon. Member for Hitchin (Mr. Asterley Jones), whether we ought not to retain the tax there also. After space heaters, I think they are the most wasteful of all these articles. My mind is wholly against making a concession on water heaters, but I will naturally listen to any further arguments which may be advanced. On the other hand, cookers, and cooking apparatus in general, are cases in which there should be a remission. I accept the argument which has been put forward by a number of hon. Members on both sides of the Committee that, after all, one must cook and that in many of the new local authority houses and, in fact, in all new houses, it is much more civilised, practical and sensible to cook with either electricity or gas. Therefore, I agree that cookers shall be exempted altogether from the tax.
As for further possible exemptions, the hon. Member for Stockport (Sir A. Gridley) has always been a great protagonist of the exemption of the electric kettle. It is an extremely useful implement; we have argued about this before, and I think we can exempt it.

Sir A. Gridley: It is nearly always supplied with the cooker.

Mr. Dalton: Yes, but even if it is supplied separately I think it could be exempted. There are ancillary articles which I am taking in my stride, so to speak, such as boiling rings, grillers, hot plates, etc., I am prepared to take all those out of the field of tax. Then we come to certain other matters. I think the case is made out for wash boilers. It is desirable that we should encourage householders to have effective laundry facilities and, therefore, I am inclined to exempt wash boilers. Then there are various electric washing machines. I would like to consider them to see where the line of definition comes. I think there is a case for doing something about electric washing machines and electric irons, too.
We then come to some more debatable articles, the cost of which is rather high and of which it cannot be, therefore, argued


that they are necessities in the same degree as some of the articles to which I have been referring. There I definitely ask for a period of reflection. I shall be prepared to listen to anything further which may be said between now and the Report stage, and that applies also to refrigerators and vacuum cleaners. I am not quite sure about them. Everybody would like them to be exempted from tax. They do not consume a great deal of current on the one hand—that is a point in favour of exempting them—but, on the other hand, I do not wish to carry the process of exemption too far. I think the Committee will agree that I have already gone a certain distance in that respect, and, therefore, I would like to suspend judgment on refrigerators, vacuum cleaners and one or two kindred objects. There are one or two other cases which I will not elaborate, on which I would like to think again.
Therefore, if I may summarise, we have retained space heaters and probably water heaters under the full tax; I am not convinced that those should be exempted.

Brigadier Low: Does the Chancellor include instantaneous water heaters?

Mr. Dalton: There I must seek technical advice, perhaps from the hon. and gallant Member. No water heater that I have ever known heated instantaneously to the temperature required. It always took a certain amount of time and fuel. Retaining those and giving exemption to the group of articles to which I have referred, headed by gas cookers, and suspending judgment on a few intermediate cases like refrigerators and vacuum cleaners, I should be giving away by way of revenue—which is a factor, though not a predominant one, which I took into account when I made the proposal—something of the order of £8 million this year, which is substantial, and about £12 million in a full year. Any relief we give here should be made retrospective to Budget day, otherwise people would be unfairly treated. I think anybody who, between Budget day and now, has purchased any of the articles now to be exempted, and has paid the high Purchase Tax on them, should be entitled to a refund. I am advised that can be done. There will not be a very large number of such persons, because the desire and effect of this tax was to stop purchases

of those articles. I am advised that refunds can be arranged and I will make suitable arrangements accordingly. I must ask that the Clauses shall be left to the Government to draft, because there are difficult questions of definition and so forth, but I will give the undertaking on the lines which I have indicated. I hope that the hon. Member will be prepared to withdraw his Amendment, and that the other Amendments which we have been discussing will not be pressed, and on Report stage I will bring forward proposals on the lines which I have indicated.

Captain Crookshank: Could the right hon. Gentleman say how the refund will work? Obviously, a great deal of satisfaction will be obtained from it, but, after all, the tax, as we have always understood it, has been levied at the wholesale stage. How, therefore, will it be possible to get the refund into the right hands? Perhaps the Chancellor would prefer not to say anything about it, but it seems to me to be a very novel idea, always having heard the argument that it takes place at the wholesale stage. How can Mr. A. or Mrs. B get the refund?

Mr. Dalton: May I take advantage of the right hon. and gallant Gentleman's suggestion, and make a detailed explanation at a later stage? I am advised that it can be done and, therefore, I am of opinion that it should be done I would prefer to defer my explanation. I do not pretend yet to have a cut and dried scheme. I am merely advised that it can he done and if, on further consideration, I am sitisfied that that is so, I will take the necessary measures.

Mrs. Castle: Would my right hon. Friend make quite clear in which category he has placed electric irons. Are they certain, or are they among the doubtfuls?

Mr. Dalton: Yes, they are among the certains.

Sir John Barlow: There seems to be a certain amount of doubt in the mind of the Chancellor as to the advisability of not increasing the Purchase Tax on electrical cleaners. We all know what difficult times housewives have had throughout the war. That position has-not been alleviated by queues and so forth. The Government are trying to get women, back into industry, and it is most important that they should do so. The use


of an electrical cleaner saves a great deal of time in the house. I expect most hon. Members on both sides of the Committee have used an electrical cleaner at one time or another, and I think they will agree that it saves a great deal of time We know the Chancellor wishes to save electric current, and that is the basis of all these increases in Purchase Tax.
I should like to point out, however, that I am informed that the amount of coal used in making the electricity to run cleaners is estimated to be under 1,000 tons a year, which is not much compared with the vast quantities of coal used for industrial and domestic purposes. The Chancellor of the Exchequer said he was not going to increase the tax on electric irons, yet they consume 23,000 tons of coal a year—or are estimated to do so by the trade; and electric clocks use some 15,000 tons. These are figures given by the trade, and I have no doubt the Chancellor can check them very easily if he wishes to do so. Against those large amounts of coal consumption by the use of electric clocks and irons, what is 1,000 tons for cleaners? Yet cleaners do mean a good deal of saving of time in so many homes in the country. I hope the Chancellor of the Exchequer will think again, and do his best to make this a happier and a cleaner world.

Mr. James Hudson: I should like to say how warmly many of us on these benches appreciate the concessions—the considerable concessions—that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has made. They certainly go beyond anything I had expected. I know what his difficulties are. I am sure my hon. Friends will for the most part agree with me that what he has proposed will go a long way to meet the requests we have put to him in our speeches tonight. It does not take away one iota from what I have said, to say that I am disappointed at the way the Chancellor seems to be looking at the question of electric water heaters.
I agree with him that these can be very useful instruments. I saw what he meant when, in commenting on what the hon. and gallant Member for North Blackpool (Brigadier Low) said about instantaneous water heaters, my right hon. Friend said he did not know of any "instantaneous" water heaters. The heater in my flat takes a long time to heat the water. I think that

one reason is that the hiring authority does not service its water heater frequently enough to keep them in good condition. That means a waste of fuel. I do not want to pay for it; but the nation has to pay for it, in the sense that good fuel is wasted because the water is not heated quickly.
Against that, I think the Chancellor must take into account that, in the newer world in which we are living, the old fireside has gone, with its grate and the boiler behind the grate and the oven at one side. There is such a thing in my flat. We are in an old flat. But we are very glad to leave the old grate as a memento of the past; and to turn to our electric water heater and cooker. It really will effect a very great disservice to many homes, and a very great loss in fuel, if the Chancellor takes too stringent an attitude with regard to the water heaters. People will turn back to the old firesides and the old grates and the old heating arrangements.
I have this further point to make about the matter, which has been touched on in the Debate, although the Chancellor does not seem to have allowed it much weight, namely, that the water heaters, for the most part, in such houses and flats as I know, are paid for on the hire system and the money paid for their hire goes into the rent. The rent of my own water heater, ineffective as it sometimes is—I have looked the matter up—costs me res. a quarter. If the Chancellor puts the higher tax on water heaters, people will be charged twice as much. That is a very heavy imposition to put on the tenants of the new houses. It is a definite increase in the rent of the houses. That is not a good policy. I submit very earnestly to the Chancellor, now that the Labour Government are doing so well in providing the houses. [Interruption.] I do not agree with the hon. Member for Stockport (Sir A. Gridley) who began his speech by suggesting that the houses were not being delivered by the Labour Government. At least he looked as though he would like to have said that, but knew that he would have destroyed his case if he had. But the houses are being built and are going to be delivered as houses to rent. [HON. MEMBERS: "When?"] Now Many people are getting houses as a result of this Government's policy, but it would be a pity if, on top of the rents


that are now being charged—charged as a result of considerable subsidies to make the rents low—the Chancellor were to put on this tax and so destroy part of the aid he is giving, and make the rents heavier through the prices of these articles. He has indicated that he has not finished his consideration of the matter, and I hope that before the Report stage he will not rule out water heaters. I am quite sure this in some way can be dealt with. I think that if the Ministry of Fuel and Power brought to bear more pressure upon the hire authorities to service their water heaters, a good deal more fuel could be saved than by any tax the Chancellor could put on these articles to raise the price of them.
7.15 p.m.
I hope, too, he will give further thought to the vacuum cleaners. I have in my constituency the most famous of the firms of electric cleaner manufacturers, and I have it on good authority that the hon. Member for Eddisbury (Sir J. Barlow) made a reasonable computation in saying that only about 1,000 tons of coal are used per annum in the manufacture of sufficient electricity to run all the vacuum cleaners in the country. But the amount of toil and moil and difficulty in the home that the masses of women in the country are saved by electric cleaners is immense. This affects many working women and I am assured by the company to which I have referred that their vacuum cleaners go to homes 80 per cent. of which are run by the women of the houses who have not got maids and who themselves use the vacuum cleaners. To make these more expensive would add very considerably to the work these women are doing. I leave those two points with the Chancellor of the Exchequer for his further consideration. I sit down with another very warm word of commendation for what he has done.

Brigadier Low: When I interrupted the Chancellor of the Exchequer a few moments ago I used the term "instantaneous" gas water heater, and I rather gathered that not only did the Chancellor of the Exchequer not think any water heater was instantaneous, but that he did not see the distinction between the kind of water heater to which I was referring and the water heater described by another epithet. I would ask him to remember—and I am quite sure he knows this—that

by "instantaneous" water heater I mean the modern equivalent of the geyser. It really does save fuel. That kind of water heater really does save fuel, because it is only alight during the time that the water is being drawn off. If the Chancellor's object is to save fuel, there is a very good case for exempting that type of heater from Purchase Tax.

Major Cecil Poole: I should like to say a few words with regard to the plea of my hon. Friend the Member for West Ealing (Mr. J. Hudson). When the Chancellor is considering water heaters, I hope he will consider something else, too. I am very sorry that the Minister of Fuel and Power was not here tonight to hear the plea of my hon. Friend, because if he had been here I am sure he would have been appalled at that suggestion. The water heater is one of the heaviest consumers of electricity, and for people to plead for water heaters to be installed in houses when we are face to face with the situation which will arise next winter is, to me, to show a complete disregard of our position. Anyone would think that there had been no fuel crisis last winter, when an hon. Member advocates the removal of restrictions on purchases of that sort. There is no connection between the supply of water heaters and the supply of new houses for the people, and my hon. Friend is quite out of touch if he thinks the working class heats its water with water heaters. They are the most wasteful form of heating, and have no relation to the housing problem, and the building of a house will not be held up because it has not a water heater.
I think there is a stronger case to be made for exempting vacuum cleaners than some of the other commodities, in regard to which the Chancellor has conceded the point, and dismissed the tax with a wave of his hand. I am with those who say that this is a most valuable adjunct of the housewife, and it is unfair today to penalise her in her cleaning tasks. The vacuum cleaner ought to be one of the first things to be exempted, because domestic servants are largely non-existent in many households today. I say the vacuum cleaner ought to be exempt from the tax, but the water heater, no. I am reminded of information given to me last year when electric tires were freed from Purchase Tax. Then, had the electric fires sold in the area served by the Ironbridge Power Station all been on during the whole of


the 24 hours they would have absorbed the total output capacity of that power station. That was the situation last year when electric fires were freed. Take the tax off water heaters and allow an abundance of them to be used, and the fuel crisis which is still looming will be a very stark reality to all of us.

Viscount Hinchingbrooke: I should have thought it was for the Government to say that the expected fuel crisis—and I am perfectly certain we shall have one as a result of the Government's policy—bore directly upon coal, and not upon the electricity stations. I understand from what the Chancellor has said that he is making no differentiation between gas and electricity in regard to water heaters. I take it from that, that he thinks the electricity stations cannot stand it. If that is the case, there is then a further point to be considered in the argument put forward by the hon. Member for West Ealing (Mr. J. Hudson). The Chancellor said that water heaters were wasteful. They are not wasteful thermally, as I understand it. An element is inserted into an existing tank, it is encased in material to make it heat proof, and it conserves its heat, except, of course when the water is drawn off. If the hon. Member for West Ealing suffers nom his particular installation it must be because it has been inefficiently installed, and has not been properly protected. The water heater is not wasteful in that sense. A certain number of units of electricity are put through the element, and the water is heated a certain number of degrees. It may be expensive in the consumption of electricity, as the hon. and gallant Member for Lichfield (Major Poole) has just said it is; but, as I understand it, the Chancellor is not basing his argument on the expense of the electricity. I hope he will consider seriously taking further technical advice on this matter in order to see whether he cannot give way in this direction.

Mrs. Manning: Has the noble Lord ever compared his electric meter on which is indicated the amount of electricity used for the water heater—and I hope he reads the electric meter—with that on which the other consumption of electricity in his house is indicated? If so, he will find that the amount used for the water heater is abnormal.

Several Hon. Members: Several Hon. Members rose—

The Chairman: We have had a very full discussion, and I hope the Committee will agree to come to a decision now.

Mrs. Castle: I will not detain the Committee long, but the Chancellor did ask us to consider the very important point he raised, whether or not he should extend his concession to vacuum cleaners and refrigerators, and he invited our comments on it. That is why I now intervene. If—albeit to the surprise of some of us—he is prepared to concede the point in regard to washing machines, I would suggest that it is extremely difficult for him to refuse to exempt such a widely socially valuable domestic instrument as the vacuum cleaner If he feels he cannot give too much, I ask him to give way at least on the vacuum cleaner, if necessary at the expense of the refrigerator; not because the refrigerators are things we do not think the working class deserves, but for the simple reason that at the moment they are not widely available. The shortage of steel makes it difficult to manufacture sufficient to instal them in the working class homes, where we hope to put them. The vacuum cleaner, however, is available to a much larger extent. While thanking the Chancellor for his concession on my Amendment in regard to electric irons, I would point out that if we had thought we would get concessions on little more than a very narrow range, we would have rushed to put down vacuum cleaners as well, because they come in very much the same category. Therefore, I ask the Chancellor, if he can, to include vacuum cleaners, although we are prepared to wait for the refrigerators.

Mr. Henderson Stewart: I should like to ask the Chancellor to consider one class of user of the water heater who has not yet been mentioned. I refer to the doctor, who needs to heat water in his own house, and who requires to have it immediately available when he needs it. I know that many doctors find that their ordinary old-fashioned water heating system is not efficient, or they cannot get the necessary fuel to be able to use it. I know many doctors who, in the past few months, and some in the past few weeks, have been compelled, by force of circumstances, to purchase and instal water heaters. Even if the Chancellor condemns


the use of the water heater in other quarters, would he not consider an exemption in the peculiar case of the doctor.

Mr. Osborne: Would the Chancellor be good enough to give a specific answer to these two points? The tax was imposed in order to save fuel, as I understand it. He has now made concessions. The first question is: Has he any data from the Ministry of Fuel and Power about how the concession will affect the fuel position? Secondly: Can he give us any hope from the Ministry of Fuel and Power that in 12 months' time the position will have improved so much that the concessions to be made will not affect the position?

Mr. A. Edwards: In view of the favourable reception which the Chancellor has accorded to our various appeals, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Schedule agreed to.

Fourth Schedule agreed to.

Orders of the Day — FIFTH SCHEDULE.—(Purchase Tax— Exemptions and reductions of rates.)

The Chairman: As the Committee will be aware, some 50 or 60 Amendments have been put down to this Schedule. If it meets with the approval of the Committee, and after having had consultations with one or two quarters, I propose to take the Amendments in groups. I will call the first Amendment, in the name of the hon. Member for East Islington (Mr. E. Fletcher)—in page 63, line 41, at the end to insert:
All types of refuse containers and dustbins.
—to be discussed together with the Amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare (Mr. Orr-Ewing)—in page 63, line 41, at the end to insert:
Such types of refuse containers and dustbins fitted with lids as are used for the storage of refuse pending collection by a public authority.
—the Amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Twickenham (Mr. Keeling)—in page 63, line 41, at the end to insert:
Such types of refuse containers and dustbins fitted with lids as are used for the storage of refuse or kitchen waste pending collecting by a public authority.
—and the Amendment in the name of the hon. and gallant Member for Chelsea

(Commander Noble)—in page 63, line 41, at the end to insert:
Such types of refuse containers, and dustbins fitted with lids, which are purchased and maintained by local authorities.
I assume that is agreed and I call the hon. Member for East Islington to move his Amendment.

7.30 p.m.

Mr. Eric Fletcher: I beg to move, in page 63, line 41, at the end, to insert:
All types of refuse containers and dustbins.
As you have said, Major Milner, there is a large number of Amendments down asking for inclusions to be made in this Schedule, which has the effect of giving total exemptions from Purchase Tax. The Amendments cover a very wide range, from taxi-cabs to tooth brushes, and from bishops' croziers to golf balls. I am concerned with the Amendment which asks that all types of refuse container shall be exempt from Purchase Tax. Whatever may be said in regard to the other items, the Committee will agree that this Amendment deals with a commodity which is a universal requirement of modern civilisation. I hope, therefore, that the appeal I am making will be sympathetically received. The Chancellor of the Exchequer said a moment ago that he was not prepared to consider remissions of Purchase Tax in so far as they affected different types of consumers, and that he was not prepared to discriminate as between one type of consumer and another.

Mr. Dalton: I said that it was administratively impracticable.

Mr. Fletcher: That is so. Unlike some of the other Amendments in this group, this Amendment is not designed to discriminate in any way, and is intended to be of universal application. The Committee will appreciate that in these days local authorities have to provide dustbins and refuse containers. It may be true that there are provisions which enable them to recover costs from landlords and occupiers, but in practice this is an expense which is falling on local authorities to an ever-increasing degree. Dustbins, in the case of houses, and refuse containers, in the case of blocks of flats, are essential to urban civilisation, which de-pew first on its water supply, and then


on the efficiency of its sanitary arrangements. Since dustbins and refuse containers are a prime necessity, they should be as inexpensive as possible. They are not an appropriate object for taxation. In view of the fact that there is no discrimination, I hope that I may secure the indulgence of the right hon. Gentleman and his blessing for this Amendment.

Mr. Orr-Ewing: I have an Amendment on the Order Paper covering almost the same point as this Amendment. The fact that I have tried to stipulate such types of refuse containers as are fitted with lids, used for storing refuse until it is collected by the public authority, does not mean that I wish to cater for dustbin snobs. The Amendment now before the Committee goes a little too far. I can think of very few things which have three sides, if not four, which cannot be used as refuse containers. It means that someone can come along with a beautiful ornamental container, heavily embossed, and claim that it should be exempt from Purchase Tax because it is being used to store rubbish. I have tried to approach the matter in a practical way, and the question of lids is a very practical point—cats realise It if we do not, and local authorities certainly know a lot about it. Many local authorities are much concerned with the fact that nearly everyone's dustbin is falling to pieces, and that it is very difficult to insist on new dustbins being provided if people have to pay heavy Purchase Tax on them.
I hope that the Chancellor will look at this from a practical point of view, bearing in mind the difficulties of local authorities at the present time. When I walk along the streets and see some of the things in which rubbish is put out for collection, I cannot help wondering how the unfortunate man who comes to collect it can ever persuade the thing to hold together long enough for the rubbish to be tipped into the cart which is to carry it away. I should like to see lids, they look awfully nice, and they are very progressive. I hope the Chancellor will not give us a dusty reply.

Mr. Dalton: This was one of the stronger unsuccessful candidates last year, and I have been looking at the problem in the interval. There is, of course, a strong case on grounds of salvage.

Mr. Burden: Before the Chancellor develops that point, will he kindly say whether this Amendment covers salvage, because that is the point I was endeavouring to develop in the Amendment standing in my name?

Mr. Dalton: Perhaps I should put it this way. I ask that each Amendment should be withdrawn, because I am quite prepared to make some arrangement—we must get the definition right—after consulting with those who advise me on these matters, and put down an Amendment on Report stage to exempt from Purchase Tax certain types of containers which are chargeable at 16⅔ per cent. I put it in that general form. I do not want to develop the point of whether the containers should or should not have lids. What I am primarily concerned about is assisting salvage collection, and enabling local authorities and private persons to play their part in saving salvage and ceasing to waste on a terrible scale material which can be used again for other purposes. I think that the Borough of Tottenham was very successful in this during the war years, as well as other boroughs.
I am sympathetic to the idea of exempting from Purchase Tax a class of receptacle, to be carefully defined, which shall facilitate salvage. I will put down, for the consideration of the House on the Report stage, an Amendment defining the effect of what I have in mind. I must keep a check on these generous impulses, however, and I would point out that the cost would be, at a minimum, £300,000, and might rise to £500,000 per annum.

Mr. Burden: I was very glad indeed to hear the point which the Chancellor made about the collection of kitchen waste. Despite the claim of my hon. Friend the Member for East Islington (Mr. E. Fletcher), that his Amendment has universal application. I am advised that it does not cover kitchen waste, which is not refuse. To illustrate the point, may I mention that the Chancellor indicated in his Budget speech that receptacles for the storage of food would he excluded from tax.
The question was taken up with the Board of Trade whether that definition covered kitchen waste, and the answer was "No." In view of the losses we have had in sheep and cattle, we shall


have a rather hard winter for meat, and no more desirable thing could be done than to encouragt local authorities to go in for the collection of kitchen waste for pig and poultry food. This Purchase Tax discourages even the most progressive authority from developing the collection of kitchen waste. I am not against dustbins being excluded; I have the cost figures for 1939 and today. In 1939, an ordinary dustbin cost 8s. Today, it is 22s. 8d., including 3s. 11d. Purchase Tax. Everyone with knowledge of local authorities will be aware that, outside London, authorities can charge only 2s. 6d. a year under a dustbin hire scheme. Obviously, that does not cover the expenditure. As my hon. Friend the Member for East Islington claimed so much for his own Amendment, may I point out that the Amendment down in the name of the hon. Member for Twickenham (Mr. Keeling) and myself is the one that has received the commendation of the Institute of Public Cleansing, the professional body charged with the responsibility for advising on these matters.

Mr. E. Fletcher: I appreciate the readiness with which the Chancellor has responded to the Amendment, and in view of the fact that he has said he will put down appropriate words on the Report stage to meet the general wish of the Committee, I desire to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

7.45 P.m.

Lieut.-Colonel Sir Thomas Moore: I beg to move, in page 63, line 41, at the end, to insert:
London taxicabs being motor cars designed and constructed in compliance with the conditions of fitness required by the Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis for the grant of licences to ply for hire within the Metropolitan Police district.
Your predecessor, Major Milner, was good enough to inform me earlier today that as I had an Amendment on the Order Paper dealing with taxicabs, which was covered by this Amendment, which is in the name of my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for South Paddington (Vice-Admiral Taylor), I might join in the discussion. The Chancellor has been taking things in his stride today, and I hope that that long stride of his will cover the subject of my Amendment,

London taxicabs. This matter has been before successive Chancellors of the Exchequer for some years, but hitherto we have failed in our persuasion and arguments. However, I feel that the Chancellor is in a state of sweet reasonableness today; in fact, he has been so generous that I have hardly any doubt about his acceptance of this Amendment. I feel that he will rise before I have completed my argument, and say that I need not go any further because he proposes to accept it. If that is in his mind I am willing to forgo the rhetoric which I proposed to offer to the Committee, but as the right hon. Gentleman still keeps his seat I suppose I had better use my convincing arguments.
In 1944, this question was raised by myself and others with the right hon. Gentleman's predecessor, and although the answer was in the negative then, I think the Committee will agree that considerable changes in the country's position have since taken place. Thousands, indeed millions, of young men have tumbled out of the Forces during the past 18 months. They have shown certain indications as to how they wish to earn their livelihood, and we must see how we can enable them to do that in the best possible way. It has been estimated that there were something like two million men in the Forces during the war who could drive, or were taught to drive, cars and maintain motor vehicles. That also happened in the First World War. A great number of them being mechanically minded, or open air minded, have had desire to continue this interest in civil life, to make use of motor transport as their livelihood.
We know that some have taken to road haulage—although their chances do not seem very bright, following the introduction of the Transport Bill—that some have taken to garage work, where they are earning an admirable living, and that some have gone in for the manufacture of motor cars. But quite a number have shown a strung desire to become London taxicab drivers. There is hardly a Member of this House who has not at some time or other travelled in a London taxi. Indeed, there are few people who, in order to catch a train, or keep an urgent appointment have not used a taxicab. What a lamentable journey, many of them have had to undergo. One has only to sit in some of the ramshackle affairs that


pass for taxicabs to realise that. We ought to be ashamed to offer them to strangers and visitors to this great capital.
A great number of the young men who came out of the Forces had gratuities. They hoped to find it easy to enter taxicab life, but they found, to their horror, a 33⅓ Purchase Tax on taxicabs, to add to the fantastic increase in taxes since 1939. In that year a Beardmore cost £480; today, it costs, with Purchase Tax, £997 8s. 4d. If we take the cost of a taxicab on hire purchase we find that cab costing £550 in 1939 now costs £1,264 12s. 4d. That puts owning a cab practically outside the capacity of most of these young men. A taxicab is the taxi driver's stock in trade. It is his living, just as the scalpel or the knife, is the surgeon's living. But in the case of the scalpel, or the surgeon's knife, it is either exempt from tax altogether, or is subject only to 16⅔ per cent. tax. Why this discrimination between the stock in trade for the taxi driver, and the stock in trade for the surgeon?
In 1945 I asked two questions—one of the right hon. Gentleman's predecessor and one of the right hon. Gentleman himself—on this subject, and the answer in each case, which showed the continuity of policy of the Treasury and his advisers, was to the effect that it was impossible to distinguish between taxis and private cars. I asked the right hon. Gentleman, as a sensible man, to agree with me when I say that is sheer bunkum. He, I am sure, will agree when I tell him that the present taxicabs, which are passed by Scotland Yard, have to be approved both in design and size by the Commissioner of Police. Every taxi that runs on the streets of London has to comply with certain restrictions as to turning space, length and so on, so it is quite impossible for any reasonable person to be unable to distinguish in appearance or in other ways between a private car and a taxi. There is a common phrase—a tool of trade—and it has been commonly regarded in the Treasury by successive Chancellors of the Exchequer that a tool of trade has been long recognised as something which should not be subject to taxation. Everyone knows what a tool of trade is. It is part and parcel of the individual in earning his living. I say that the taxicab is a tool of trade to the taxi driver and, therefore, in my submission, should be exempt.
Why is there discrimination between a taxicab and an omnibus? The taxicab is a tool of trade for the small man, and the omnibus is a tool of trade generally of the big monopolies. That to my mind makes no justice, and I feel that the Chancellor has perhaps not had time to consider that marked discrepancy in the treatment of the small man and the treatment of the big monopoly. From the general point of view, we want more taxis, and the Minister of Transport has authorised another 3,000 for London; but how are they to be bought at this fantastic price? We want new taxis and comfortable taxis. We expect—and the Government have shown agreement with this expectation—hordes of visitors during the summer with hard currency. The Chancellor himself has authorised, I am told, £200,000 to the travel or tourist associations to facilitate the welcome we are prepared to give to these visitors and their currency. It seems to me that we are putting the cart before the horse. We want to make our country and the great city of London a place to which people will be glad to come, to stay in, and to spend their money in. One of the most reasonable preparations that could be made is to have plenty of new, comfortable taxis. The only way that can be done is to exempt taxis from Purchase Tax and to allow the 3,000 taxis authorised by the Ministry of Transport to come on to the roads, so as to make our lives more comfortable and safer.

Vice-Admiral Taylor: I have great pleasure in supporting this Amendment. This is not the first time the Chancellor of the Exchequer has been asked to remit the Purchase Tax on taxicabs. This was asked by the hon. Member for St. Marylebone (Sir W. Wakefield) last year, and I hope that on this occasion the Chancellor will favourably consider it or else the arguments put forward on behalf of the taxicab drivers in London will become a hardy annual until eventually the Chancellor is overcome and gives justice to the taxicab trade in London. There is no question that new and up-to-date taxis are urgently required on the streets of London. We require more and up-to-date taxicabs to meet the modern conveniences which people expect. As proof of that the Minister of Transport and the Minister of Supply have authorised the construction


of 3,000 new taxicabs to ply for hire in the London area.
I would point out to the Chancellor of the Exchequer the absolute necessity from the financial point of view of bringing the taxicabs in London up-to-date. The Government are anxious to increase tourist travel, and to encourage tourists to come to this country, and especially to this great city of London. Under present conditions, the scarcity of taxis, their complete out-of-dateness, and the difficulty of obtaining them must act as a deterrent to people coming here. Anyone arriving by train at one of the main line stations, after a long and tiring journey, who desires a taxi knows full well that he will have to queue up, and when his time comes and a taxi is driven up, invariably he will be asked to take someone else with him. That is a matter of great inconvenience.

Mr. George Thomas: Not always.

Vice-Admiral Taylor: In many cases it is quite impossible because people coming by train have luggage and are unable to take other people in their taxis. It would be an advantage to the Chancellor to encourage the placing of new taxis on the streets of London to meet the needs of the public. People corning from abroad have a very tiring journey, and when they arrive at the London station instead of being able to obtain a taxi they have to queue up and wait their turn and naturally get terribly disgusted. While they are in London they have great difficulty in obtaining taxis in order to do their shopping, to see the sights and to go to the theatres, etc. That is a bad thing for the tourist traffic and also for business people. I hope that the Chancellor will take full notice of that particular point of view.
The requirements for the London taxis are a very important factor in this case, because the London taxicab is quite different from any other taxicab throughout the country. It has to be built to special requirements laid down by the Metropolitan police and that is not so in the case of provincial cities—it may be so in future, but it is not so today. London taxis have to comply with the specifications of the Metropolitan police and that makes them quite different from any other cab or private motor car. There is no question about that whatsoever.
8.0 p.m.
These special designs prevent the London taxi trade from buying secondhand cars, converting them and using them as taxis, whereas in the provinces they are allowed to do that, and they can buy these good secondhand vehicles at prices less than the London taxi man has to pay today for a new cab. They can run them continuously and sell them afterwards if they please; they do not have to have a yearly overhaul of their cabs, and, therefore, it is not, as has been said by the Chancellor or by the Financial Secretary, a question of discrimination if London taxicab drivers are exempted from the Purchase Tax. The London taxicab drivers are already discriminated against by the special design required by the Metropolitan police, and to whom the driver must apply for a licence. I would point out to the Chancellor that a licence for a taxicab is given by the London police, and it is not given until the log book which the driver has with his taxi has had entered on it the words "Licensed as a London taxicab." Only when those words are inserted in the log book does a driver get a licence from the Metropolitan police to ply for hire in London.
One of the objections which has been made to this remission of the Purchase Tax is that one cannot tell the difference between a taxicab and an ordinary car. I ask the Chancellor—a man of the greatest commonsense—not to put forward any more the plea, which really does not hold water, that one cannot distinguish between a London taxicab and an ordinary private car. Another reason the Chancellor put forward was that a taxi might be converted for use as a private car or for, hire. The Ministry of Supply, which authorised the manufacture of these 3,000 cabs, has prohibited the manufacturer from using the raw materials for making these cabs for any other purpose and they must be sold solely for use as taxicabs. If the taxi driver, having received his licence from the Metropolitan police, endeavoured to sell his car to somebody for some other purpose, how could that person possibly get a licence? As I have stated, on the taxicab log book the words "Licensed as a London taxi cab" are inserted, and no licensing authority would give a licence to anybody to use that car unless those words were removed. If they were removed, and if the Chancellor


accepted this Amendment whereby Purchase Tax did not have to be paid in the first place, the purchaser could thereupon be called on to pay the tax, or at any rate he would be prohibited from using the car as anything but a taxicab.
Those are two of the great objections, and I hope the Chancellor will fairly consider them, because they are of great importance. It is impossible for the taxicab not to be distinguished from any other car, and it is impossible for a taxicab to be sold and utilised for any purpose other than that for which it was designed. I will put the case also with regard to the vastly increased cost, since because of the initial rise in the cost of the taxi itself and its running, and of its repair, insurance and so on, the taxi trade will not be able to buy the new cabs unless the Purchase Tax is remitted, the cost will be too high. These new cabs should be put on the streets of London. The public want them and the trade want them, but they will not be there unless the Chancellor removes the Purchase Tax. The Chancellor may make the point that they did not do too badly during the war, so I will make it first. It is true, but the Chancellor will also agree with me that that was because there was a great scarcity of taxicabs, and also because the percentage of mileage with passengers and of vacant mileage altered most considerably. In 1938, for instance, the engaged time for a taxi was 40 per cent. and the vacant time 60 per cent., whereas during the war, in view of the inadequate number and so on, the engaged time rose to 75 per cent. and the vacant time fell to 25 per cent. Now the engaged time is going down, and it is anticipated by the motor cab trade that the ratio will be stabilised at about 60 per cent. engaged and 40 per cent, vacant time. That accounts for them having done well during the war, but I hope the Chancellor will not argue that because they did they must necessarily be doing well now and can afford the new cost.
I would like to give the figures of costs, though I apologise for keeping the Committee so long. In 1939 a Beardmore cab cost £480 and there was no Purchase Tax, so the outlay for a man who wanted to run a single cab was £480. If he could put down that sum he could run his cab. Many ex-Service men, especially those

with very high disabilities, are running taxicabs. We must not forget that there are in fact some men with 100 per cent. disability who are running cabs, and if we want to do something to help the ex-Service men, therefore, we should make it possible for them to get new and up to date cabs. The vehicle or cab costs £780, with Purchase Tax at £217 8s. 4d., a total of £997 8s. 4d. That is an enormous increase, and if the cab is paid for on the hire purchase system, as many are, over a period of five years it will cost the man who buys it £1,264 12s. 4d., whereas in 1938 a taxicab bought on hire purchase over four and a half years would have cost £550. It costs two and a half times as much today, and I ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he thinks this reasonable if he wishes to help the tourist traffic, as he does, and if he wishes to be fair to the taxicab owners, many of whom own only one cab. Does he think it fair that he should ask them to pay over £1,200 as the initial cost of their cab?
In passing, may I remark that the deposit which has to be put down for a new cab is £330, which includes Purchase Tax. That is too much. Before the war the sum was £50, so that it is now six times as much. I think it is monstrous to expect these men to have to meet this extra cost. May I also state the increase in other costs? The insurance premium will now be £31 as against £21 10s.; the owner will have to bear the first £5 damage as against the first £2 claim; spare parts for new cabs will cost 100 per cent. More, and for old cabs 75 per cent. More. Repairs estimated for a new cab owing to the altered design will cost 100 per cent. more.

The Deputy-Chairman: The hon. and gallant Member is giving a long history of taxicabs. I must ask him to deal with the Amendment.

Vice-Admiral Taylor: I quite accept the accusation, Mr. Beaumont, that I am making a long speech, but I would merely submit—

The Deputy-Chairman: I do not wish the hon. and gallant Gentleman to misunderstand me. I was not questioning or challenging the length of his speech but merely its correctness in dealing with the present Amendment.

Vice-Admiral Taylor: I must explain the difference today, and the reasons why the Chancellor should soften his heart and


accept this Amendment They are very cogent reasons. There is also the question of fares. Fares are all laid down by the Metropolitan Police and those charged today are the same as those which were in force before the war. The cab trade are very averse from having the fares increased—

The Deputy-Chairman: The hon. and gallant Member cannot bring in the question of fares on this Amendment.

Vice-Admiral Taylor: I was endeavouring to show what it would mean to the taxi drivers if this remission of tax were granted, but, of course, Mr. Beaumont, I accept your Ruling and will not pursue that particular matter further. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] I am very glad that everybody agrees with me, and I hope that I have put up a fair case for the taxicab drivers. I have been most sincere in everything I have said and there is no doubt that there is a discrimination against the London taxi men. They are in a category entirely by themselves compared with every other means of transport. The buses and commercial vehicles are free of tax.
They do not pay Purchase Tax, so why should the taxi drivers be obliged to do so? They are all part of the transport provided for London and contribute to the convenience of the people of London in enabling them to get about the city. Why should taxi cabs be singled out? They have to be built to a special design, and I do not understand why they should have to pay Purchase Tax when commercial vehicles and buses are not liable. It is not fair and I therefore ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer to consider this Amendment most favourably and so enable the taxi drivers to put new and up-to-date taxis on the streets of London and improve the transport conditions in this great City of London.

8.15 p.m.

Mr. Dalton: We have had two most eloquent speeches in support of this proposition which is not new, as has been admitted by the hon. Members who have spoken. The question of Purchase Tax on London taxi cabs has been raised before. We had it on the Second Finance Bill of 1945 and we had it again in 1946, although I think the Amendment was not called. Broadly speaking, therefore, the

argument is familiar, although it has been stated with great fire and eloquence tonight. May I first say that I think that a large part of the speech of the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for South Paddington (Vice-Admiral Taylor) was not really relevant to the question of Purchase Tax? We all want to encourage the construction of taxi cabs. We know there is a great scarcity of them in London and that many which are still running are in a dilapidated condition. I was very glad to be reminded by the hon. and gallant Gentleman that another 3,000 have been ordered by the Department responsible—I believe the Ministry of Transport.
Those 3,000 will be made, Purchase Tax or no Purchase Tax. Whether or not the tax remains will have no bearing whatever on the date of construction of these new taxicabs. They have been ordered, and what will determine the date of completion is availability of labour and materials against all the other claims upon it. I hope they will be completed soon, and there is no doubt at all that they will all be taken up and that none of them will be left without somebody who is prepared to purchase it even with Purchase Tax. The fact is that there is still a good deal of money knocking about London as compared with the provinces. There is no doubt that it is very much easier to make a living by plying for hire in London—never mind the type of vehicle—than in any of the provincial cities or, still more so, the country districts. That is a happy circumstance for Londoners and does perhaps furnish some justification if that were needed, for maintaining this particular tax at this time even though, at first sight, it may be represented as somewhat of a discrimination against London. If that were so London receives a favourable discrimination by the fact that there is much more money available and more fares clamouring to be taken on board here than in other parts of the country.

Vice-Admiral Taylor: May I deal with the statement of the Chancellor that 3,000 new cabs are being made?

Mr. Dalton: Ordered.

Vice-Admiral Taylor: Ordered.

Mr. Dalton: I was taking up the hon. and gallant Gentleman's own point.

Vice-Admiral Taylor: Is the Chancellor saying that they have been ordered by firms who are going to take them up? If so, my information is that only some 12 new taxicabs have been placed upon the streets of London and that the reason is that the cab trade cannot afford to buy them.

Mr. Dalton: I am quite sure that that is not the case. I was quoting what I understood to be what the hon. and gallant Gentleman had told the Committee. I understood him to say that 3,000 new taxicabs had been ordered for London.

Vice-Admiral Taylor: No, I said that they had been authorised by the Ministry concerned, which is a very different thing.

Mr. Dalton: Very well, they have been authorised to be made, and my point is a very simple one. It is that whether or not they are made has nothing to do with the Purchase Tax. If I were to accept this Amendment it would not in any degree accelerate the arrival of these new taxicabs on the streets. They will come on as fast or as slowly as the other claims on labour and materials allow.
Much as we must all desire to see more taxis in London and to encourage the tourist traffic and all the other desirable objects, I do not consider that that has any bearing on this Amendment. We all share those aspirations, but acceptance of the proposal would not bring them any nearer. The real reason why on previous occasions this proposal has not been accepted is a very simple one. If it were accepted, there would then be discrimination in favour of the London taxicab as against a number of other vehicles which ply for hire in other parts of the country.

Vice-Admiral Taylor: They will be of a different design.

Mr. Dalton: Design has nothing to do with the argument. I am trying to put this clearly. The argument is convincing to me. I do not know whether I can make it convincing to the hon. and gallant Gentleman. This would be discriminating in terms of taxation in favour of one particular class of vehicles of a certain design which ply for hire in London against other classes of vehicles of other designs plying for hire in other parts of the country. That would be discrimination which I

could not justify. The hon. and gallant Gentleman attributed to me also the possibility of using certain arguments which I had not in mind to use. The arguments I had in mind were the two I have used. They are, first of all, that the major part of this consideration has no bearing at all upon the Purchase Tax, and, second, that we cannot discriminate in this way, as we should do if I accepted the Amendment, in favour of a particular class of vehicles and persons making their living from the use of those vehicles. I would only add that the cost of accepting the Amendment, if the production of London taxicabs were to return to the prewar level—we hope that may yet be so—would be £100,000 to £200,000 a year, and I cannot afford that on this occasion.

Mr. Marlowe: I find the right hon. Gentleman's answer very unsatisfactory. Indeed, it is more than that It is nonsense. The right hon. Gentleman put forward only two points. First, there was the one with regard to the numbers which, as he put it, were on order. It turns out that he completely misunderstood the point. The point is that these have been authorised by the Minister of Transport. The point of my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for South Paddington (Vice-Admiral Taylor) was that in view of the cost of the Purchase Tax, in spite of the authorisation, they were not being taken up because people could not afford to pay for them. The only other point the right hon. Gentleman made was that it would cause discrimination in favour of a particular type of vehicle plying for hire. That vehicle is already discriminated against by having to pay much more than any other vehicles plying for hire. Therefore, proportionately the cost of London taxicabs is higher than any other taxicabs. The man who wishes to drive a taxicab in London has already, without Purchase Tax, to pay more than others. Those are the Chancellor's two points and they do not make sense.

Mr. Dalton: I would like to make it completely clear. I was comparing the proposal to exempt from Purchase Tax this particular type of vehicle in relation to other types. New motor cars pay 33⅓ per cent. Purchase Tax, as do the London taxicabs. They are all on a level. A suggestion was made this afternoon about a higher Purchase Tax. That is why the


hon. and learned Member for Brighton (Mr. Marlowe) did not understand my argument about discrimination through removing the Purchase Tax from this type of vehicle only.

Mr. Marlowe: If the Chancellor removed the Purchase Tax, he would proportionately bring the price to the potential taxicab owner more into line with other vehicles. That is the point I am trying to make.
The question of the payment has been put by my hon. and gallant Friend, and I want the right hon. Gentleman to reconsider this from the point of view of the ex-Serviceman. There was a good point made by my hon. and gallant Friend that before the war a man could become a taxi owner by depositing £50; now it is somewhere about £330. That is important to a large number of ex-Servicemen for whom this is the only suitable occupation. I have had cases of men who have to go into some outdoor occupation because they are suffering from a disability which renders them incapable of carrying on in any other industry. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will consider that they should have favourable recognition in those circumstances. Curiously enough, I was driven to the House only a little while ago by a taxi driver who, when I was paying him, asked, "Is there any hope of getting the Purchase Tax removed from these vehicles?" I said I did not think there was much, and he said that with his gratuity, if there was no Purchase Tax, he thought he would be able to buy his own taxi to drive, but the Purchase Tax made that impossible for him. He went on to say, "I suppose it would be more hopeful if the Chancellor were Ben Smith?" I said that I supposed Ben Smith had enough private cars of his own not to bother about taxi-cabs, and that was how our conversation ended. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will consider that the case of the ex-Serviceman is one deserving special consideration and will reconsider his decision.

Air-Commodore Harvey: I want to ask only one question. Earlier today the right hon. Gentleman made a statement about the proposed new Purchase Tax on ordinary cars. Supposing the cost of production goes up and the net cost of the taxicab becomes over

£1,000, will the new rate of tax apply to taxicabs or not?

Mr. Dalton: I think we ought to look at that when the new Clause comes up. It would be out of Order for me to pursue that now, but I should be glad to deal with it when the new Clause is on the Paper.

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: May I endeavour to elucidate one point to which my right hon. Friend referred but which is still not quite clear to me? What is being sought in this Amendment is not any advantage to the detriment of persons other than London taxicab drivers who earn their living by plying for hire. What I think the movers of this Amendment have in mind is that the London taxicab drivers—of whom so many apparently reside in my constituency—have to bear a great burden by reason of special regulations imposed by the authorities upon them and not imposed upon people who ply for hire in other parts of the country. The taxicab is the only commercial vehicle on which Purchase Tax is payable, and it seems odd that the Treasury should persist in their determination to single out this form of conveyance for the discrimination to which it is subjected at present, and to which it will continue to be subject unless my right hon. Friend between now and the Report stage may suddenly see the light.

Mr. Charles Williams: It may be an interesting fact, but I do not think many London taxicab drivers live in my constituency. For once I think the Chancellor seems to be barking up the right tree because it seems a little unfair that the London taxicab driver should escape tax on a new car and those who live in my Division or in Scotland or Wales and wish for a new car cannot get it without paying tax. In many cases people will escape the tax by buying secondhand cars, but those who buy new ones will have to pay the tax. It would mean that some constituents of most of us would undoubtedly be labouring under a grievance if this concession were made. From that point of view, I think the Chancellor is perfectly fair and right.
8.30 p.m.
The argument has been fully developed that these drivers have to observe special rules and regulations. But might not the Chancellor of the Exchequer, realising that the London taxidriver did great service


during the war, running under worse conditions than almost every other type of driver plying for hire, give the concession now? Why not give these more worthy citizens this concession and, as a corollary, extend it to other drivers in the country next year? Of course, if the Chancellor would take the tax off all cars straightaway, I would support that. If there is a Division on this, I would not vote blind for preference for the London taxicab driver, but I would do so if it would help this concession to be spread another year over the whole country. I do not think

many of us would like to vote blind for the London taxi driver who serves us so excellently—when he can—without having some regard for similar drivers, especially ex-Service men, who wish to start up with their own cars. I hope the Chancellor will consider accepting this Amendment, and then going a little further on the Report stage, so that he could eventually put the whole trade on the same level.

Question put, "That those words be there inserted."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 99; Noes, 273.

Division No. 259.]
AYES.
[8.33 p.m.


Amory, D. Heathcoat
Glyn Sir R.
Peake, Rt. Hon. O


Assheton, Rt. Hon. R.
Gridley, Sir A.
Poole, O. B. S. (Oswestry)


Baldwin, A. E.
Grimston, R. V.
Price-White, Lt.-Col. D.


Beamish, Maj. T. V. H.
Harvey, Air-Cmdre. A. V.
Prior-Palmer, Brig. O.


Beechman, N. A.
Henderson, John (Cathcart)
Ramsay, Maj. S.


Birch, Nigel
Hinchingbrooke, Viscount
Rayner, Brig. R


Boles, Lt.-Col. D. C. (Wells)
Hogg, Hon. Q
Renton D


Bower, N.
Hollis, M. C.
Ropner, Col. L.


Boyd-Carpenter, J. A.
Holmes, Sir J Stanley (Harwich)
Ross Sir R. D (Londonderry)


Braithwaite, Lt.-Comdr J. G.
Howard, Hon. A.
Sanderson, Sir F


Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W
Hulbert, Wing-Cdr. N. J.
Scott, Lord W.


Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.
Hutchison, Col. J. R. (Glasgow, C.)
Shepherd, W. S. (Bucklow)


Butcher, H. W
Kendall, W. D.
Spence, H. R.


Byers, Frank
Kerr, Sir J. Graham
Stanley, Rt. Hon. O


Carson, E
Lambert, Hon. G.
Stewart, J. Henderson (Fife, E.)


Challen, C
Langford-Holt, J.
Stuart, Rt. Hon. J (Moray)


Channon, H
Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A H
Studholme, H. G.


Clarke, Col. R. S.
Lindsay, M. (Solihull)
Sutcliffe, H.


Clifton-Brown, Lt.-Col. G.
Linstead, H. N
Taylor C. S. (Eastbourne)


Conant, Maj. R. J. E.
Lipson, D. L.
Thorp, Lt.-Col. R A F


Corbett, Lieut.-Col. U (Ludlow)
Lucas-Tooth, Sir H.
Touche, G. C.


Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F C
MacDonald, Sir M. (Inverness)
Vane, W. M. F


Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col O E
Mackeson, Brig. H R
Wadsworth, G


Cuthbert, W. N.
Maclay, Hon J. S.
Walker-Smith, D.


Digby, S. W.
Macpherson, N. (Dumfries)
Wheatley, Colonel M J


Donnes, Sqn.-Ldr. P. W.
Maitland, Comdr. J. W.
White, J. B. (Canterbury)


Dower, Lt.-Col. A V G. (Penrith)
Manningham-Buller, R. E
Williams, C. (Torquay)


Drayson, G B
Marlowe, A. A. H.
Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge)


Drewe, C.
Marshall, D (Bodmin)
Willoughby de Eresby, Lord


Dugdale, Maj. Sir T. (Richmond)
Marshall, S. H. (Sutton)
York, C


Fraser, Sir I (Lonsdale)
Medlicott, F.



Fyfe, Rt. Hon. Sir D P M
Morris, Hopkin (Carmarthen)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Gage, C.
Nicholson, G.
Lieut.-Colonel Sir Thomas Moore


Gammans, L. D.
Noble, Comdr A. H. P
and Vice-Admiral Taylor.


George, Maj. Rt. Hn. G. Lloyd (P'ke)
Osborne, C





NOES.


Adams, Richard (Balham)
Bowles, F. G. (Nuneaton)
Colman, Miss G. M


Allen, A. C. (Bosworth)
Braddock, Mrs. E. M. (L'pl. Exch'ge)
Comyns, Dr. L.


Alpass, J. H.
Braddock, T. (Mitcham)
Cook, T. F.


Attewell, H. C
Bramall, E. A
Corlett, Dr. J.


Awbery, S. S.
Brooks, T. J. (Rothwell)
Corvedale, Viscount


Ayles, W. H.
Brown, George (Belper)
Cove W. G.


Ayrton Gould, Mrs. B
Brown, T. J (Ince)
Daggar, G


Bacon, Miss A
Bruce, Maj. D. W. T
Daines, P.


Baird, J.
Buchanan, G.
Dalton, Rt. Hon. H.


Balfour, A
Burden, T. W
Davies, Edward (Burslem)


Barnes, Rt. Hon. A. J.
Burke, W A.
Davies, Harold (Leek)


Barstow, P. G.
Butler, H. W. (Hackney, S)
Davies, Hadyn (St. Pancras, S.W.)


Barton, C.
Castle, Mrs. B. A
Deer, G


Battley, J. R.
Champion, A. J.
de Freitas, Geoffrey


Bechervaise, A. E.
Chater, D.
Diamond, J.


Berry, H
Chetwynd, G. R
Dobbie, W.


Binns, J.
Cobb, F. A.
Dodds, N. N.


Blackburn, A. R
Cocks, F. S.
Donovan, T.


Blenkinsop, A.
Coldrick, W.
Driberg, T. E. N.


Blyton, W. R.
Collindridge, F
Dugdale, J. (W. Bromwich)


Bottomley, A G.
Collins, V. J.
Dumpleton, C. W




Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C
Lawson, Rt. Hon J. J
Robertson, J. J. (Berwick)


Edwards, Rt. Hon. Sir C. (Bedwellty)
Lee, F. (Hulme)
Rogers, G. H. R.


Edwards, N. (Caerphilly)
Levy, B. W
Ross, William (Kilmarnock)


Edwards, W. J. (Whitechapel)
Lindgren, G S
Royle, C.


Evans, John (Ogmore)
Logan, D. G.
Sargood, R.


Evans, S. N (Wednesbury)
Longden, F.
Scollan, T.


Ewart, R.
Lyne, A W
Scott-Elliot, W


Fairhurst, F.
McAdam, W.
Segal, Dr. S.


Farthing, W. J
McAllister, G
Sharp, Granville


Field Capt. W. J.
McEntee, V. La T.
Shawcross, C. N. (Widnes)


Fletcher, E G. M. (Islington, E.)
McGhee, H G
Shawcross, Rt. Hn. Sir H. (St. Helens)


Follick, M.
Mack, J D.
Shurmer, P.


Ferman, J. C.
Mackay, R. W. G (Hull, N.W.)
Silverman, J. (Erdington)


Fraser, T. (Hamilton)
McKinlay, A S
Simmons, C. J.


Freeman, Maj. J. (Watford)
Maclean, N (Govan)
Skinnard, F. W


Freeman, Peter (Newport)
McLeavy, F.
Smith, C. (Colchester)


Gaitskell, H. T. N
Macpherson, T. (Romford)
Smith, H. N. (Nottingham, S.)


Gallacher, W.
Mainwaring, W. H
Solley, L. J.


Ganley, Mrs. C. S
Mallalieu, J P W.
Sorensen, R. W.


Gibbins, J.
Mann, Mrs. J
Soskice, Maj. Sir F


Gibson, C. W
Manning, C. (Camberwell, N.)
Stamford, W.




Steele, T.


Gilzean, A.
Manning, Mrs. L. (Epping)
Stewart, Michael (Fulham, E.)


Glanville, J E. (Consett)
Marquand, H A.
Stubbs, A. E.


Goodrich, H. E.
Marshall, F. (Brightside)
Swingler, S.


Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A. (Wakefield)
Mathers, G.
Sylvester, G. O.


Greenwood, A. W J. (Heywood)
Mellish, R. J
Symonds, A. L.


Grenfell, D. R.
Messer, F.
Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)


Grey, C. F.
Mikardo, Ian
Taylor, Dr. S. (Barnet)


Grierson, E
Millington, Wing-Comdr. E. R
Thomas, D. E. (Aberdare)


Griffiths, D. (Rother Valley)
Mitchison, G. R
Thomas, I. O. (Wrekin)


Griffiths, Rt. Hon. J (Llanelly)
Monslow, W
Thomas, George (Cardiff)


Griffiths, W. D (Moss, Side)
Moody, A. S
Thurtle, Ernest


Gunter, R. J
Morgan, Dr. H. B.
Timmons, J.


Guy, W. H.
Morley, R.
Titterington M. F.


Haire, John E. (Wycombe)
Morris, Lt.-Col. H. (Sheffield, C.)
Tolley, L.


Hall, W. S.
Morris, P (Swansea, W.)
Turner-Samuels, M


Hamilton, Lieut.-Col. R.
Mort, D. L.
Ungoed-Thomas, L.


Hannan, W. (Maryhill)
Moyle, A.
Usborne, Henry


Hardy, E A
Murray, J. D
Vernon, Maj. W. F


Harrison, J.
Nally, W.
Viant, S. P.


Hastings, Dr Somerville
Naylor, T. E
Walkden, E


Henderson, A. (Kingswinford)
Neal, H. (Claycross)
Walker, G. H


Henderson, Joseph (Ardwick)
Nichol, Mrs. M. E. (Bradford, N.)
Wallace, G. D. (Chislehurst)


Herbison, Miss M
Nicholls, H. R. (Stratford)
Watson, W. M.


Hobson, C R
Noel-Baker, Capt. F. E (Brentford)
Webb, M. (Bradford, C)


Holman, P.
Noel-Buxton, Lady
Weitzman, D.


Holmes, H. E. (Hemsworth)
O Brien, T
Wells P. L. (Faversham)


House, G
Oldfield, W H
Wells, W. T (Walsall)


Hoy, J.
Oliver, G. H
West, D. G.


Hudson, J. H (Ealing, W.)
Orbach, M.
Westwood, Rt. Hon. J


Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Paling, Rt. Hon. Wilfred (Wentworth)
White, H. (Derbyshire, N.E.)


Hughes, H. D. (Wolverhampton, W.)
Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)
Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.


Hutchinson, H. L. (Rusholme)
Palmer, A. M. F.
Wilcock, Group-Capt. C. A. B


Hynd, H. (Hackney, C.)
Parkin, B T
Wilkins, W. A.


Hynd, J. B (Attercliffe)
Paton, J. (Norwich)
Willey, F. T. (Sunderland)


Irving, W. J
Pearson, A
Willey, O. G. (Cleveland)


Isaacs, Rt. Hon G A
Peart, Thomas F.
Williams, D. J. (Neath)


Janner, B.
Piratin, P
Williams, J. L (Kelvingrove)


Jay, D. P. [...]
Platts-Mills, J. F. F.
Williams, Rt. Hon. T. (Don Valley)


Jeger, G. (Winchester)
Poole, Major Cecil (Lichfield)
Williams, W. R. (Heston)


Jeger, Dr S. W (St. Pancras, S.E.)
Porter, E (Warrington)
Willis, E.


John, W
Pritt, D. N.
Wills, Mrs. E. A


Jones, Rt. Hon. A C (Shipley)
Proctor, W. T.
Wilson, J. H.


Jones, D T (Hartlepools)
Pryde, D. J.
Woods, G. S.


Jones, Elwyn (Plaistow)
Pursey, Cmdr. H
Yates, V. F.


Jones, P. Asterley (Hitchin)
Randall, H. E
Young, Sir R (Newton)


Keenan, W
Ranger, J
Zilliacus, K


Kenyon, C
Rankin, J.



Kinley, J.
Reeves, J.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Kirby, B V
Reid T (Swindon)
Mr. Snow and Mr. Popplewell.


Lang, G
Richards, R

The Deputy-Chairman: The next Amendment which will be called is the one in the name of the hon. Member for Putney (Mr. Linstead). At the same time, hon. Members may discuss the Amendments in the names of the hon. Member for Shrewsbury (Mr. Langford-Holt) to include tooth paste, the hon.

Member for Wolverhampton (Mr. Baird) to include tooth brushes, and the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Pitman) to include asthma remedies.

Mr. Linstead: I beg to move, in page 63, line 41, at the end, to insert:
Medical, medical and surgical appliances.


After the Chancellor has somewhat summarily paid off my two hon. and gallant Friends, I hope that with this Amendment I may have a little more success at the hands of the Financial Secretary. This is a proposal for remitting Purchase Tax entirely from medicines and medical and surgical appliances. The situation at the present time is that drugs and medicines manufactured or prepared, other than essential drugs of an exceptionally costly character, bear tax at 16⅔per cent., and that tax is borne by all these medicines whether bought over the counter or prescribed by a doctor.
8.45 p.m.
The definition has, in fact, given rise to a good many anomalies. First of all, we have the phrase "manufactured and prepared." That gives rise to the serious anomaly that a substance like glycerine or like chloroform, or a substance like bicarbonate of soda, if bought in its ordinary form, does not pay tax, but the moment it is prepared for medicinal use the purchaser has to pay 16⅔ per cent. tax on it. Then there is the phrase "essential drugs of an exceptionally costly character," which has also given rise to very great anomalies in practice. It puts the emphasis on cost, and not on their essentiality. We have the curious situation that a drug such as penicillin, which was decided by a Treasury Order to be a drug of exceptionally costly character, at a time when it was exceptionally costly, is still tax-free, long after the cost has been reduced very substantially, while a drug of the type of streptomycin which has not been added to the Order because it is still new, is still bearing a very substantial tax. I would like to indicate to the Committee how the incidence of this tax falls, and I have heard only today of a case in which a patient had paid in Purchase Tax the sum of £23 for streptomycin because it has not yet been added to the list of exceptionally costly drugs. The machine has not worked smoothly, and the burden has fallen very unfairly upon sick people.
Then, there are one or two administrative difficulties in connection with both wholesale and retail trade to which I would ask the Treasury to have regard. First of all, the wholesaler was assured, when this tax was to be imposed, that he

would only have to pay it when he collected it, but, in actual fact, the machinery of collection is such that the wholesaler is expected each month to remit to the Treasury the equivalent amount of tax according to his sales, whether, in fact, he has or has not collected it. Similarly, with the retailer, and especially where the small retailer is concerned, he has to lock up a great deal of his capital in Purchase Tax.
I think the Committee will agree that there is no prima facie case whatever for a Purchase Tax on medicines, which is really a Purchase Tax on sickness and nothing else. I think that the Financial Secretary will probably say that, if it were merely a question of medicines prescribed by doctors or medicines bought by the public, the Treasury would not be anxious to see the tax retained. He will probably point to the existence of a large and flourishing trade in proprietary medicines, and say that he sees no reason why the Treasury should not have an additional "rake-off" from what he would regard as a very prosperous industry. I think there is a real answer to that, which is this: If, for reasons of public health, that industry is suitable for control, that control should be a direct control through the Ministry of Health, let us say, and the accident of taxation should not be used in order to effect that sort of control by a sidewind. I expect the Financial Secretary will tell us that a difficulty will arise because this tax is collected at the wholesale level, which makes it administratively difficult to differentiate between medicines supplied on medical prescription and those bought by the public over the counter. But I would urge him to consider whether mere administrative convenience ought to stand in the way of remitting at this stage taxation on sickness. I would suggest that even if the State is, in fact, going to pay, in the course of a year or two, for most of the medicines and most of the expenditure of hospitals, it still is a very clumsy device to go through the whole of an industry's machine in order to take the money out of one pocket and put it in the other. For every point of view, including that of administrative convenience, even if the State is paying the bill for a great deal of the medicine, it would be far simpler to remit this tax.
I would base my argument primarily on the consideration that this is a tax on sick-


ness. We know the Chancellor is in a very healthy condition—far too healthy a condition sometimes—but, nevertheless, he ought to be able to realise that it is a tax on sickness and that on those grounds alone it deserves some remission at the present stage of our national finances.

Mr. Baird: While I agree with much of what has been said by the hon. Member for Putney (Mr. Linstead), I think there is a much stronger argument for my Amendment, to insert "tooth brushes," which is of a much more limited nature than his. I refer to the question of withdrawing the tax of 33⅓ per cent. on tooth brushes. I think my argument is much stronger, because if my Amendment were accepted it would simply bring tooth brushes into line with all sorts of other brushes. Floor brushes, scrubbing brushes and brooms are free of tax, but brushes which clean the teeth bear Purchase Tax. Surely, it is just as important to keep one's mouth clean as to keep one's floors clean? I remember a woman who had a thoroughly clean kitchen and whose floors and table were well scrubbed. She took well cooked food out of a clean pantry and put it into her mouth which was filthy and full of germs. It is just as essential to remove the tax from brushes which clean the mouth as from brushes which clean the floors. The fact is that some kind of official in the Treasury has slipped up, because while most of these brushes for cleaning are classed together, tooth brushes and nail brushes are classed with aids to beauty. I appeal seriously to the Financial Secretary. No one can argue that a tooth brush is not an essential for health. Those of us who were in the Services during the war know that it was one of the most essential articles in a soldier's pack. It is essential, if we are to build up our health, to encourage the full use of tooth brushes on every possible occasion. At the present time the whole of the medical profession is trying to make the country tooth conscious. I believe that if the Financial Secretary would accept my Amendment to insert "tooth brushes" in the Schedule it would do very much to encourage us in this campaign for better dental health.

Mr. J. Langford-Holt: When the Purchase Tax was introduced, I think two reasons for its introduction were given. The first was that it was for the sake of the Revenue, and the second,

that it should be a deterrent on expenditure. I should at this moment, and in connection with the Amendments of my hon. Friend the Member for Putney (Mr. Linstead) and of the hon. Member for East Wolverhampton (Mr. Baird), like to inquire of the Financial Secretary whether it is in the interest of the country and in the interest of the health of the country that people should be deterred from purchasing medicines, medical appliances, tooth brushes—and tooth paste, which last is the subject of my own Amendment. Last year the Chancellor gave an undertaking—and I believe that the Financial Secretary also made a similar statement—that they would consider each case on its merits, and have regard also to the loss which the Exchequer would incur as a result of any remission given. We ask—I think I speak for my hon. Friend the Member for Putney and for the hon. Member for East Wolverhampton—for no less. We ask the Chancellor to consider these cases, as they are, purely and solely on their merits, and nothing more.
His Majesty's Commissioners of Customs and Excise have produced, and, I assume, will continue to produce, a long list of articles which are subject to tax, medical appliances and various medicines. I ask the Committee to consider on what logic this list is based. For instance, it is very difficult for one to see why liquid paraffin of a medicinal nature should be subject to Purchase Tax, whereas vinegar and treacle, in exactly the same list, are not subject to it. There is also an extensive list, which would take a considerable time even briefly to summarise for the Committee, whose basis is, that if I buy 100 gallons of cod liver oil I can get it free of tax; but immediately Mr. Crookes slaps his label on and tells me how big a dose to take I am required to pay Purchase Tax on it.
I should like to underline what the hon. Member for East Wolverhampton has said in favour of the remisson of tax on tooth brushes. I am rather disappointed he did not introduce tooth paste also while he was at it. I offered him my support and thought I might have had his support at the same time. But these articles do go together. There is no doubt in my own mind—and I am sure that the hon. Member for East Wolverhampton, as a member of the dental profession will agree with me—that the two are Invaluable and the


greatest assets to health. My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for South Paddington (Vice-Admiral Taylor) gave the Treasury Bench credit for a very high standard of intelligence.

Mr. Stanley: Why?

Mr. Langford-Holt: Well, that may be an over-statement, and I think that probably I should not put it as high as that. But I should be glad to reconsider that opinion if the Financial Secretary could and would—as, I believe, he should—see his way to consider these Amendments on their merits, and on their merits only.

9.0 p.m.

Dr. Santo Jeger: Perhaps I, as a practising doctor, could be allowed to add my plea to the eloquence which has already been poured out on this subject in favour of these Amendments. When so many drugs and medicines are taxed and so many others are not taxed, it is rather difficult to find a basis for the differentiation. There seems to be no obvious reason why one preparation should be taxed and another should escape the tax. The distinction made by the Treasury seems to he quite arbitrary. It might be said, of course, that some medicines are luxuries, more so than others. But many of those which are taxed are at least no more luxuries than many of those which are not taxed.
There are two sorts of people on whom the tax falls: doctors and chemists. The smaller portion of the tax falls on the doctors; and it falls upon doctors in working class areas alone. They are accustomed to charging a comparatively small fee for a consultation and the dispensing of medicine. Since doctors are notoriously bad calculators they do not usually increase their fees by the amount of the Purchase Tax—at least, I have never heard of that being done. But chemists who dispense medicines, or who sell drugs over the counter, can always pass on the amount of the Purchase Tax to the customers who buy their drugs, or who have their medicines dispensed by them It is a fact, too, that there are more chemists' shops in poorer districts; that the consumption of medicine is far higher among poorer people than among those who are better off; and to that extent, therefore, the Purchase Tax on drugs and medicines

is practically a working class tax. Would the Financial Secretary consider these points, and will he face the point of view that any tax upon sickness savours of immorality?

Lieut.-Colonel Bromley-Davenport: Surely social democracy has advanced sufficiently under the present Government for tooth brushes to be regarded in this country as a universal necessity rather than as a luxury for the idle rich? The low standard of the people's teeth in this country is notorious, and it is in order to try to remedy this defect that this Government, carrying out the policy of the Coalition Government, have embarked upon a vast policy of national expenditure under the health services, to try to improve the supply and numbers of dentists, and to arrange dental services. But they could save a great deal of this expenditure if they were to take the Purchase Tax off tooth brushes and tooth paste. If there is no tax on teeth, why should there be a tax on tooth brushes?
Surely, it is paradoxical that the Government should spend hundreds and hundreds of millions of pounds a year on subsidising the food for the people of this country, and then tax the brushes with which the people seek to preserve their teeth in order to consume that food? It may well be, of course, that the Government envisage a steady diminution in both the quality and the quantity of the supplies of foodstuffs for this country. Judging by the recent statement of a Member of the Government Front Bench, that looks like a certainty. Therefore, one is forced to the conclusion that the Government actually desire to destroy the people's teeth in order to discourage their desire for eating. Even if this Finance Bill is a poor Bill and already has too many teeth in it, let us at least have tooth brushes in the Schedule. Surely, it is ridiculous that the brushes with which the women laboriously scrub their doorsteps should be free from tax whilst, in some cases, their own unscrubbed teeth may be decaying due to the high cost of tooth brushes?

Mr. Nigel Birch: I should like to add my support to the very powerful plea which has been put forward on the subject of tooth brushes. I am glad to find that I have so many disciples. Last


year, I put down an Amendment on this subject, but I was not fortunate enough to have it called. This year, this matter has become much more popular The Purchase Tax, I understand, is something like the lower income groups, in that we shall always have it with us. It is, therefore, important that it should be levied on some sort of rational principle. The principle, I have always understood, was supposed to be that necessities were not to be taxed, and less essential things were to be taxed in order of their degree of importance.
As several hon. Members have pointed out, if we look at the Purchase Tax table we get some very curious results. In the same part as tooth brushes appear, there come in, at an equal rate of tax, eyebrow brushes, animal brushes, and other forms of personal brushes. One would think that eyebrow brushes were of less importance than such things as tooth brushes. In the same part of that table we find that cleaning brushes, artificial eyelashes and ringlets are free of tax. The question is whether it is as equally necessary to brush your teeth as it is to brush your eyebrows, and whether it is less important to brush your teeth than to polish your empty grate. The Chancellor of the Exchequer would have to say, "Yes," in both cases, whereas the Minister of Health would say, "No." What one wants is a certain amount of co-ordination from the Government in these matters. I have taken a little trouble to find out what this concession would cost, and I am advised that it would cost about £350,000. I would draw the attention of the Committee to the fact that this is precisely the sum we are spending on a new embassy in Rome. That is another interesting point. Is it more important to have an embassy in Rome than that people should clean their teeth?

The Deputy-Chairman: I do not think we can discuss the Embassy in Rome on this Amendment.

Mr. Birch: It is a question of relative importance, whether it is more important that people in this country should have clean teeth. I think it is more important that teeth should be clean, and I, therefore, commend this Amendment to the Financial Secretary, and hope that he will take as his motto "os sanum in corpore sano" and commend that motto to his

right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

Mr. Howard: I desire to give my support to those who have spoken on medicines generally, and on tooth brushes in particular. I wish to say a word in support of an Amendment standing in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Bath (Mr. Pitman), in connection with asthma remedies, which I understand has not been selected. Fortunately, I am not a sufferer from asthma, but for many years I suffered each summer from hay fever, which is an allied complaint, and in consequence I have the greatest sympathy with those who suffer from asthma. These remedies, and particularly inhalers, are essential for some of these sufferers. It is probably not realised that many chronic sufferers of asthma regularly use these inhalers every day, just as those who suffer from diabetes have to take regular doses of insulin. They are absolutely essential to the maintenance of health.
We have the curious position that the actual inhaler is free from tax, because it is classified as an instrument, whereas some of the constituents from which the stuff which it is put into the inhaler is made, such as adrenalin, are free of tax, and others are subject to tax. Whether they are proprietary articles I know not, neither do I care, for they are in common use by these sufferers, and they give them relief. I will not mention the names, because I would be accused, possibly, of advertising, but there are two commonly used ones which can be bought for 9s. 9d. in one case, and 8s. 4d. in the other. The tax on the one costing 9s. 9d. is 1s. 1d., and the tax on the other is 10d. I am told that these unfortunate people who have to take the remedy regularly probably consume about a bottle every fortnight. So it works out that the tax on that which is essential for them to preserve their health may cost them anything from 10s. to over 25s. in a year. That is not a large amount, and I do not want to make the hardship case, but I would point out that this tax is a definite tax on productive capacity. Anyone who has suffered or who has friends who suffer, from asthma, or an allied complaint, will know the effect of a bad bout of it on the productive capacity of the individual.
As I say, this is a definite tax on productive capacity, and in that case it must be contrary to the national interest. I fully accept the Chancellor's general argument that the question of user cannot be considered when dealing with Purchase Tax items, but if it can be shown that there is only one user, and that not contrary to the national interest, the argument falls to the ground. This is a limited Amendment. If the Government find themselves unable to accept the wide Amendment which is the first of this group on the Order Paper I hope they will consider, between now and the Report stage, the special and narrower Amendments dealing with tooth brushes and asthma remedies. If they find it practicable, as I am sure they will, I hope the Chancellor will bring forward an Amendment in his own name at the Report stage.

9.15 p.m.

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Glenvil Hall): I would remind the Committee that Purchase Tax was put on in 1940. During the war it was not very reasonable for Members in any quarter of the Committee to suggest to the Chancellor of the day that he should reduce the tax on certain items. But the war is now over, and the present Chancellor, Budget by Budget and Finance Bill by Finance Bill, has been making concessions. In the aggregate they amount to a fairly large sum of money. It is easy, as tonight's Debate has shown for any of us to pick out articles which were in the original Schedules, and to say that it is absurd that they should continue to be subject to this tax. Tooth brushes are an excellent example of that. In fact, there has been a Purchase Tax charged on tooth brushes from the beginning. To remit the tax would cost the Exchequer £300,000, and not £350,000 as one hon. Member said, and tooth paste and tooth brushes taken together would cost my right hon. Friend, if he gave this concession, £1 million. Although the Purchase Tax on a tooth brush stands at 33⅓ per cent. we do not buy one or tooth paste every other day, and I think that it will be generally agreed that the tax is not an excessive burden on anyone. I am positive that there is no one here who would say that people do not clean their teeth and do not use tooth brushes and tooth paste simply because they cannot afford to do so by reason of the Purchase Tax.

Mr. Baird: Will my right hon. Friend agree that Purchase Tax does discourage people from buying tooth brushes?

Mr. Glenvil Hall: It is my contention that that is not so. People when they buy tooth brushes do not realise how much of the cost goes in Purchase Tax, and considering what people are prepared to pay for things just now, the price of a tooth brush, including Purchase Tax, is neither here nor there as compared with other things which have borne Purchase Tax and in respect of which my right hon. Friend either has or is anxious to make concessions.

Lieut.-Colonel Bromley- Davenport: The right hon. Gentleman says that it is a small amount. How about a father, mother and three children? Multiplied together, is that not quite a lot?

Mr. Glenvil Hall: The hon. Member for Putney (Mr. Linstead), who opened the Debate on this subject with a very reasonable speech, put in a plea for the exemption of medicines, medical and surgical appliances. To accede to his request would cost £9 million, and I think I have only to state the figure to show how impossible it is for my right hon. Friend to agree to exempt the appliances, medicines and drugs to which the hon. Member referred. The tax at present is 16⅔ per cent., which is less than the basic, rate, and there is, as the hon. Member knows because he is an expert in these matters, a long list of essential and scarce drugs which are completely exempt. It may be that at some time when the financial position of this country is better than it is now, it will be possible for my right hon. Friend, if he is still Chancellor of the Exchequer, to accede to the request of the hon. Member for Putney or someone else who makes the same plea. The tax on these particular items falls mainly on ready-made preparations—pills and things of that kind, about which I assume there can be a division of opinion.
Someone said—and here with others  pay my tribute to the chemist, who does produce for the people of this country wholesome drugs which we can trust—that on the whole people rush to the chemist much more often than they should. Many of us would probably be a good deal better if we did not find the chemist so convenient. The point I want to make, and I leave it at this, is that so far as these


medicines and drugs are subject to tax, no one can say that they are essential to the life of the community or that anyone is going without something which they really ought to have. That being so, therefore, in the list of priorities which my right hon. Friend has to set himself, I am afraid that these drugs which at present are not exempt—there is a long list of those which are exempt, but I mean the particular drugs which make up the income of £9 million—are very low.
As regards medical and surgical appliances, as the hon. Member for Putney (Mr. Linstead) knows only too well, the vast bulk of them are already exempt. Surgical instruments, prepared surgical dressings, bandages, hospital furniture and many other articles of specialised design have always been exempt from Purchase Tax, and those which are not exempt, it is impossible to identify them as particularly applicable to hospitals or use in the sick room. Suggestions have been made during the year, and they were made last year when we were dealing with this, that certain articles of domestic crockery which are used in hospitals or in the sick room should be exempt. It is impossible to do that because these things can be used not only in hospitals but in the home. Therefore, as their ultimate destination and their ultimate user is unknown, it is impossible that they should be exempt. My hon. Friend the Member for South East St. Pancras (Dr. Jeger) said that chemists would pass on the tax, whereas doctors could not. I am sure that I can accept that as an assertion of the truth in its entirety. It is true that a chemist can pass on to the consumer the tax he may have paid, but surely a doctor too, if he finds drugs are costing him more than they previously did owing to the incidence of Purchase Tax, can add it to the fees he charges his patients—at any rate, the richer ones among his patients, who may possibly find that their bill is a little higher than it otherwise might have been if this tax had not been paid.
I think I have covered most of the points that have been raised except one dealing with asthma, which was mentioned by the hon. Member for the St. George's Division of Westminster (Mr. Howard). It is true that asthma is a scourge, and it would be possible, I suppose, to make an exception in favour of some of the medicines he mentioned—

the names of which I too will not indicate, except to say that they are proprietary remedies. That being so, if you once allow a proprietary remedy for one particular disease like asthma to be sold free of Purchase Tax, you open the door to claims on behalf of other proprietary medicines for the same treatment. He mentioned adrenalin, but that, of course, is quite free of tax and many people find it of enormous benefit in the treatment of asthma. Where it is possible to except a drug in a case of this kind it has been done, but where, as I say, some new treatment has been discovered and at the moment it is either a secret or a proprietary article, obviously we cannot allow it to take the same place as another drug which is not proprietary in any shape or form. For these reasons, which I hope will commend themselves to the Committee, I am sorry that my right hon. Friend cannot accept any of the suggestions, and I will ask the Committee, if the matter is taken to a Division, to vote against their inclusion.

Mr. Stanley: I am disappointed in the right hon. Gentleman. I regard him with sincere affection, and I follow his career with interest and, I hope, with whatever assistance I can give. I consider that on this occasion he missed a unique opportunity. The Chancellor of the Exchequer is safely ensconced elsewhere in the House, the Whips on the Front Bench opposite do not look to me to be very agile, and it would have been perfectly easy for the right hon. Gentleman to stand at that Box and give the concession before the Whips could have informed the Chancellor of what was taking place. Had that happened the right hon. Gentleman, by one stroke—a chief stroke, a stroke equal to one embassy less the ball room—would have been able to inscribe himself in the hearts of the British people as the man who saved British teeth. All over the country statutes would have been erected to him—no doubt in ivory—in recognition of the great service he had performed. But he has thrown away that opportunity.
Now that the Chancellor himself has just returned it is too late. It is the same, sad story always in human life. If one misses an opportunity it never recurs. That chance which the right hon. Gentleman had has now gone. I really cannot believe that he was serious in the arguments that he advanced against


exempting tooth brushes from the Purchase Tax. What were they? First, that tooth brushes had been subject to the tax for some time, but of course if they had never paid the tax before no Amendment to exempt them would appear on the Order Paper. Our whole object is to exempt, if we can, articles which have been and which are now on the list. During the golden age when the Chancellor is present that is continually being done. Therefore, I do not think we can accept the fact that because tooth brushes have hitherto been on the list they are sacrosanct and must remain thereon for ever. Surely they may join electric irons in the glad rush for freedom?
What is the Financial Secretary's other objection? He says, "Well, I do not believe that because of the Purchase Tax any one is prevented from buying a tooth brush." It is, of course, a matter which is difficult of proof because no one will admit either that he has not a tooth brush at all or that the tooth brush which he has is no longer serviceable. Even if it were true, what is the argument? It is that this thing is so cheap that it can perfectly well stand a tax upon it. That is a dangerous argument because it is one which could be extended to any article which is cheap. You can say, "Well, after all, this only costs a 1s. and 50 per cent. tax on that is only 6d. Who minds paying another 6d.?" But the fact is that we are taking £300,000 from the people of this country for the privilege of being allowed to clean their teeth. Put in that way, I really cannot see how any one can seriously justify the continued imposition of this tax.
To clean ones teeth is surely one of the basic lessons of modern hygiene. It is one of the things that every doctor, every school and every nursery class is trying to impress upon the growing generation, and when you have done that you say. "For the privilege of doing what your doctor, your teacher or your school tells you is essential for your health, you shall pay £300,000 a year into the pocket of the Chancellor of the Exchequer." I really cannot believe that this is an answer which has been given in all seriousness, I have been in the House a long time and I know what happens. The Chancellor has to go out from time to time to seek the normal refreshments of human nature,

and before he goes he says to the Financial Secretary or the Solicitor-General, as it may be, "I shall be out for half an hour"—or it may be an hour or even an hour and a half. "While I am out mind that you do not give anything away." It is a fact that in the only instance I can remember of a Financial Secretary disobeying that injunction and giving something away during the absence of the Chancellor of the Exchequer he found that he had given himself away too.
I hope, therefore, that now that the Chancellor of the Exchequer is here he may resume the mantle of charity which he denies to his able assistants and give a more kindly answer to the plea which has come from all sides of the Committee. I have concentrated entirely upon the one Amendment to exempt tooth brushes. It is not that. I do not sympathise with the main Amendment on which this discussion has arisen, but I admit that that covers much wider ground and involves a more serious financial consideration. It is a matter of some £9 million, and it is probably true than an omnibus exemption of this kind goes too far and would exclude some articles and forfeit some tax which it is not really essential to give up. I would, however, ask that serious consideration should be given between this year and the next Budget to some of the anomalies which have been cited. If this tax is to be retained, at any rate let us retain it on a logical basis so that we realise why it is that certain articles must still be in the list while some have been excluded. I should have thought that an inquiry of that kind could quite well be conducted within the next year.
I was a little worried at the animus which the right hon. Gentleman seemed to display against chemists and chemist shops. He said that he thought that it would be good for the nation if chemists were not so convenient. That is the kind of thing I used to hear said by old-fashioned temperance reformers—

Mr. J. Hudson: Is the right hon Gentleman referring to me?

Mr. Stanley: I regard the hon. Gentleman as a modern, up-to-date temperance reformer. They used to say that there would be no drunkenness if only public houses were not so convenient for everybody. I really cannot join in this idea that chemists and chemist shops are bad


for the population, and that to have so many about is a temptation to people to spend their money unwisely. I hope that it is not that kind of feeling which is behind the continuance of this sort of tax. The right hon. Gentleman must keep a watch on himself. He seems on this occasion to have spoken with almost more than his usual emphatic violence. I very much dislike seeing the right hon. Gentleman as a sort of modern Carrie Nation of the chemist shops going round smashing up all these articles of which he disapproves. For the reasons I have given, I do not press the main Amendment, although I would ask that consideration be given during the next 12 months to some of the illogicalities which exist. As far as I and my hon. Friends are concerned, unless the Chancellor, now that he has returned from his brief absence, feels able to give a more sympathetic and, I might say, a more sanitary answer than that given by the Financial Secretary, we shall certainly feel compelled to divide on the Amendment dealing with tooth brushes.

Mr. David Renton: Before the Chancellor of the Exchequer gives this further consideration, I feel it my duty to remind him and the Financial Secretary that he is going to have an interest as Chancellor in the good health of the teeth of the people of this country with effect from 1st April next year. That is to say, the worse the teeth of the people are the more the Chancellor will have to find for medical services, and the better they are the less he will have to find. I should have thought that for the sake of £300,000 it would be much better to insure that everybody, without any possible exception—we all know there are people who lack the means to get all the small necessities of life—should be able to get a tooth brush.
As part of his argument, the Financial Secretary said that the tax was so small that no one would notice it. But, as has been pointed out, where there are a number of people in a family having to buy teeth—[Laughter.]—if they have to buy teeth as well, their necessity will be even greater, for there will be less with which to buy tooth brushes—having to buy tooth brushes, perhaps not very durable ones because they have to buy the cheapest available, in the course of a year the bill mounts up, and if the family budget is worked on a very narrow margin it is a

matter which will have to be borne in mind. For those reasons I most strongly urge that further consideration be given before this Amendment departs from us.

Mr. Linstead: Before asking leave to withdraw my Amendment in order to make way for what I imagine will be a Division on the tooth brush Amendment, I would like to say that the Financial Secretary, if l may use the expression, "got away" a little too easily with his reply on the main Amendment which I moved. I would like to have had from him some indication of the fact that he and the Chancellor realise that this tax is a tax on sickness and that it is in a very large number of cases a tax on medicines which are prescribed for sick people by doctors and a tax on hospitals. I would like to know that some ingenuity has been applied to find ways and means whereby the tax on medicines could be differentiated so that the two groups of people could be treated separately. I still hope that it will be possible for the Chancellor to give us some indication of his own views about the tooth brush tax. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Sir Stanley Holmes: On a point of Order, Mr. Beaumont. May I ask you whether, if this Amendment is withdrawn, we shall have the opportunity of voting on the Amendment concerning tooth brushes?

The Deputy-Chairman: If the Committee agrees to this Amendment being withdrawn, and the other Amendment is moved, then a Division can take place on it.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Baird: I beg to ask leave to withdraw my Amendment, Mr. Beaumont.

Hon. Members: No.

The Deputy-Chairman: The Amendment has not been proposed.

Mr. Birch: I beg to move, in page 63, line 41, at the end, to insert, "Tooth brushes."
I formally move the Amendment which stands in my name and that of my hon. Friends.

Mr. York: On a point of Order, Mr. Beaumont—

The Deputy-Chairman: The Question is, "That those words be there inserted."

Mr. York: I am sorry if I have been inopportune in raising a point of Order, Mr. Beaumont, but are you not calling my Amendment—in page 63, line 41, at end, insert:
Articles designed as fuel economisers to be placed when required in stoves, grates, ranges and fireplaces above the fuel in order to convert an open fire temporarily into an enclosed fire?
It comes before the Amendment you are now putting.

The Deputy-Chairman: I admit that this places me in somewhat of a difficulty. I had not realised that the Amendment of the hon. Member for Ripon (Mr. York) came before the Amendment about tooth brushes. I think the hon. Member may find an opportunity of moving it later.

Captain Crookshank: On that point, would it not be more convenient to consider the Amendment of the hon. Member for Flint (Mr. Birch) which is under discussion as being one of a group and that, therefore, the other Amendment of the hon. Member for Ripon (Mr. York) could come afterwards?

Mr. York: Mr. Beaumont, is it entirely impossible to allow this Amendment to go through and then to call mine afterwards?

The Deputy-Chairman: I am in a difficulty. I should not have accepted the Amendment under discussion because it is below the one on the Order Paper in the name of the hon. Member for Ripon and it would mean going back.

Captain Crookshank: Surely, the whole point of discussing Amendments by groups is that we shall have a general discussion and then a vote on any particular Amendment should it be found desirable or necessary? That implies doing it at the time, and not postponing the votes for, say,

three or four hours after the Debate. That would be bringing our proceedings to an altogether farcical conclusion. Surely, the logical thing is, if there is to be a Division within the group that it should be taken after the main discussion and then we could carry on in the order of the Paper?

Mr. Glenvil Hall: May I put this point before you decide, Mr. Beaumont? It appears to me that almost any Amendment to line 41 is in Order. All we are doing here is to take those to line 41 by votes and, by doing that, we jump some Amendments and we are not taking them strictly in order as they appear on the Paper. Therefore, in my submission, it would be quite in Order for you to take the one to line 41, in the name of the hon. Member for Ripon (Mr. York) although you have taken some before it and some afterwards.

Hon. Members: Hear, hear.

Sir T. Moore: On that point of Order, Mr. Beaumont, it is within my recollection that when you announced the four in that group, this particular Amendment was not included in the group. [An HON. MEMBER: "It was."] No.

The Deputy-Chairman: The hon. and gallant Member is not quite accurate on the point that the Amendment about to be put was one of the group. I have now given the matter further consideration. I willingly accept and bow to the wishes of the Committee, and I now rule that the Amendment of the hon. Member for Ripon can be taken after a Division has been taken upon the Amendment moved by the hon. Member for Flint (Mr. Birch) to insert "tooth brushes."

Question put, "That those words be there inserted."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 107; Noes, 257.

Division No. 260.
AYES.
[9.44 p.m.


Amory, D. Heathcoat
Butcher, H, W.
Donner, Sqn.-Ldr P. W.


Assheton, Rt. Hon. R
Byers, Frank
Dower, Lt.-Col. A. V G. (Penrith)


Astor, Hon. M.
Carson, E.
Drayson, G. B.


Baldwin, A. E.
Challen, C.
Dugdale, Maj. Sir. T (Richmond)


Barlow, Sir J.
Channon, H
Eccles, D. M.


Beechman, N. A
Clarke, Col. R. S.
Eden, Rt. Hon. A.


Birch, Nigel
Clifton-Brown, Lt.-Col. G.
Fletcher, W (Bury)


Boles, Lt.-Col. D C. (Wells)
Conant, Mai. R. J. E.
Fraser, H. C. P (Stone)


Bower, N.
Corbett, Lieut.-Col. U. (Ludlow)
Fraser, Sir I (Lonsdale)


Boyd-Carpenter, J. A.
Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F. C.
Fyfe, Rt. Hon. Sir D P M


Braithwaite, Lt.-Comdr. J. G.
Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E
Gage, C.


Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W.
Crowder, Capt. John E
Gammans, L. D.


Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.
Digby, S. W
George, Maj. Rt. Hn. G Lloyd (P'ke)




Glyn, Sir R.
Manningham-Buller, R. E.
Stanley, Rt. Hon. O.


Gomme-Duncan, Col. A.
Marlowe, A. A. H.
Stewart, J. Henderson (Fife, E.)


Grimston, R. V.
Marshall, D (Bodmin)
Strauss, H. G. (English Universities)


Hare, Hon. J. H. (Woodbridge)
Marshall, S. H. (Sutton)
Stuart, Rt. Hon. J. (Moray)


Harvey, Air-Cmdre. A. V.
Medlicott, F.
Sutcliffe, H.


Hinchingbrooke, Viscount
Molson, A. H. E.
Taylor C. S. (Eastbourne)


Hogg, Hon. Q.
Moore, Lt.-Col. Sir T.
Taylor, Vice-Adm. E. A. (P'dd't'n, S.)


Hollis, M. C.
Neven-Spence, Sir B.
Thomas, J. P. L. (Hereford)


Holmes, Sir J. Stanley (Harwich)
Nicholson, G.
Thorp, Lt.-Col. R. A. F.


Howard, Hon. A.
Noble, Comdr. A. H. P.
Touche, G. C.


Hulbert, Wing-Cdr. N. J.
Osborne, C.
Vane, W. M. F.


Kendall, W. D.
Peake, Rt. Hon. O.
Wadsworth, G.


Kerr, Sir J. Graham
Poole, O. B. S. (Oswestry)
Walker-Smith, D.


Lambert, Hon. G.
Price-White, Lt.-Col. D.
Ward, Hon. G. R.


Langford-Holt, J.
Prior-Palmer, Brig, O.
Wheatley, Colonel M. J.


Linstead, H. N.
Raikes, H. V.
White, J. B. (Canterbury)


Lipson, D. L.
Ramsay, Maj. S.
Williams, C. (Torquay)


Lucas, Major Sir J.
Rayner, Brig. R.
Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge)


Lucas-Tooth, Sir H.
Renton, D.
Willoughby de Eresby, Lord


MacDonald, Sir M. (Inverness)
Robinson, Wing-Comdr Roland
York, C.


Mackeson, Brig, H. R.
Ropner, Col. L.



Maclay, Hon. J. S.
Sanderson, Sir F.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Macpherson, N. (Dumfries)
Shepherd, W. S. (Bucklow)
Mr. Drewe and Mr. Studholme.


Maitland, Comdr. J. W.
Spence, H. R.





NOES.


Adams, Richard (Balham)
Dumpleton, C. W.
Kinghorn, Sqn.-Ldr. E.


Adams, W. T. (Hammersmith, South)
Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.
Kinley, J.


Allen, A. C. (Bosworth)
Edwards, N. (Caerphilly)
Lang, G.


Alpass, J. H.
Evans, John (Ogmore)
Lee, F. (Hulme)


Attewell, H. C.
Evans, S. N (Wednesbury)
Levy, B. W.


Awbery, S. S.
Ewart, R.
Lewis, A. W. J. (Upton)


Ayles, W. H.
Fairhurst, F.
Lindgren, G. S.


Ayrton Gould, Mrs. B.
Farthing, W. J.
Lindsay, K. M. (Comb'd Eng. Univ.)


Bacon, Miss A.
Field Capt. W. J.
Lipton, Lt.-Col. M.


Balfour, A.
Fletcher, E. G. M. (Islington, E.)
Logan, D. G.


Barnes, Rt. Hon. A. J.
Forman, J. C.
Longden, P.


Barstow, P. G.
Fraser, T. (Hamilton)
Lyne, A. W.


Barton, C.
Freeman, Maj. J. (Watford)
McAdam, W.


Battley, J. R.
Freeman, Peter (Newport)
McAllister, G.


Bechervaise, A. E.
Gaitskell, H. T. N.
McEntee, V. La. T.


Berry, H.
Gibbins, J.
McGhee, H. G.


Binns, J.
Gibson, C. W.
Mack, J. D.


Blackburn, A. R.
Gilzean, A.
McKay, J. (Wallsend)


Blenkinsop, A.
Glanville, J. E. (Consett)
Mackay, R. W. G. (Hull, N.W.)


Blyton, W. R.
Goodrich, H. E.
McKinlay, A. S.


Braddock, Mrs. E. M. (L'pl. Exch'ge)
Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A. (Wakefield)
Maclean, N. (Govan)


Braddock, T. (Mitcham)
Greenwood, A. W. J. (Heywood)
McLeavy, F.


Brooks, T. J. (Rothwell)
Granfell, D. R.
Macpherson, T. (Romford)


Brown, George (Belper)
Grey, C. F.
Mallalieu, J. P. W.


Brown, T. J. (Ince)
Grierson, E.
Mann, Mrs. J.


Bruce, Maj. D. W. T.
Griffiths, D. (Rother Valley)
Manning, C. (Camberwell, N.)


Buchanan, G.
Griffiths, Rt. Hon. J. (Llanelly)
Manning, Mrs. L. (Epping)


Burden, T. W.
Griffiths, W. D. (Moss Side)
Marquand, H. A.


Burke, W. A.
Gunter, R. J.
Marshall, F. (Brightside)


Butler, H. W. (Hackney, S.)
Guy, W. H.
Mathers, G.


Castle, Mrs. B. A.
Haire, John E. (Wycombe)
Mellish, R. J


Chamberlain R. A.
Hall, W. G.
Musser, F.


Champion, A. [...]
Hamilton, Lieut.-Col. R.
Mikardo, Ian


Cobb, F. A.
Hannan, W. (Maryhill)
Millington, Wing-Comdr. E. R.


Cocks, F. S.
Hardy, E. A.
Monslow, W.


Coldrick, W.
Harrison, J.
Moody, A. S.


Collindridge, F.
Henderson, Joseph (Ardwick)
Morley, R.


Collins, V. J.
Herbison, Miss M.
Morris, Lt.-Col. H. (Sheffield, C.)


Colman, Miss G. M.
Hobson, C. R.
Morris, P. (Swansea, W.)


Comyns, Dr. L.
Holman, P.
Mart, D. L.


Cook, T. F.
Holmes, H. E. (Hemsworth)
Moyle, A.


Corbet, Mrs. F. K. (Camb'well, N.W.)
House, G.
Murray, J. D.


Corlett, Dr. J.
Hoy, J.
Naylor, T. E.


Corvedale, Viscount
Hudson, J. H. (Ealing, W.)
Neal, H. (Claycross)


Daggar, G.
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Nichol, Mrs. M. E. (Bradford, N.)


Daines, P.
Hutchinson, H. L. (Rusholme)
Nicholls, H. R. (Stratford)


Dalton. Rt. Hon. H.
Hynd, H. (Hackney, C.)
Noel-Baker, Capt. F. E. (Brentford)


Davies, Edward (Burslem)
Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)
Noel-Buxton, Lady


Davies. Harold (Leek)
Irving, W. J.
O'Brien, T.


Davies, Hadyn (St. Pancras, S.W.)
Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A.
Oldfield, W. H.


Deer, G.
Janner, B.
Oliver, G. H.


de Freitas, Geoffrey
Jay, D. P. T.
Orbach, M.


Diamond, J.
Jeger, G. (Winchester)
Paget, R. T.


Dobbie, W.
John, W.
Paling, Rt. Hon. Wilfred (Wentworth)


Dodds, N. N.
Jones, D. T. (Hartlepools)
Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)


Donovan, T.
Jones, Elwyn (Plaistow)
Palmer, A. M. F.


Driberg, T. E. N.
Jones, P. Asterley (Hitchin)
Parkin, B. T.


Dugdale, J. (W. Bromwich)
Keenan, W.
Paton, J. (Norwich)







Peart, Thomas P.
Simmons, C. J.
Walker, G. H.


Piratin, P.
Skinnard, F. W.
Wallace, G. D. (Chislehurst)


Platts-Mills, J. F. F.
Smith, C. (Colchester)
Watson, W. M.


Poole, Major Cecil (Lichfield)
Solley, L. J.
Webb, M (Bradford, C.)


Popplewell, E.
Sorensen, R. W.
Weitzman, D.


Porter, E. (Warrington)
Soskice, Maj. Sir F.
Wells P. L. (Faversham)


Pritt, D. N.
Stamford, W.
Wells, W. T. (Walsall)


Proctor, W. T
Steele, T.
West, D. G.


Pryde, D. J.
Stewart, Michael (Fulham, E.)
White, H. (Derbyshire N.E.)


Pursey, Cmdr. H.
Stubbs, A. E.
Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.


Randall, H. E.
Swingler, S.
Wilcock, Group-Capt C. A. B.


Ranger, J.
Sylvester, G. O.
Wilkins, W. A.


Rankin, J.
Symonds, A. L.
Willey, F. T. (Sunderland)


Reeves, J.
Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)
Williams, D. J. (Neath)


Reid T. (Swindon)
Taylor, Dr. S. (Barnet)
Williams, J. L. (Kelvingrove)


Richards, R.
Thomas, D. E. (Aberdare)
Williams, Rt. Hon. T. (Don Valley)


Robertson, J. J. (Berwick)
Thomas, Ivor (Keighley)
Williams, W. R. (Heston)


Rogers, G. H. R.
Thomas, I. O (Wrekin)
Willis, E.


Ross, William (Kilmarnock)
Thomas, George (Cardiff)
Wills, Mrs. E. A.


Royle, C.
Thurtle, Ernest
Wilson, J. H.


Sargood, R.
Timmons, J.
Woods, G. S.


Scott-Elliot, W.
Titterington, M. F.
Wyatt, W.


Segal, Dr. S.
Tolley, L.
Yates, V. F


Sharp, Granville
Turner-Samuels, M.
Young, Sir R. (Newton)


Shawcross, C. N. (Widnes)
Ungoed-Thomas, L.
Zilliacus, K.


Shawcross, Rt. Hn. Sir H. (St. Helens)
Usborne, Henry



Shinwell Rt. Hon. E.
Vernon, Maj. W. F.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Shurmer, P.
Viant, S. P.
Mr. Pearson and Mr. Snow.


Silverman, J. (Erdington)
Walkden, E.

Mr. York: I beg to move, in page 63, line 41, at the end, to insert:
Articles designed as fuel economisers to be placed when required in stoves, grates, ranges and fireplaces above the fuel in order to convert an open fire temporarily into an enclosed fire.
Unlike the last Amendment, this is designed merely to rectify what I think is a mistake in the Finance Act of 1946. In Part I of the Third Schedule there is given a list of goods to be exempted, and it includes:
Accessories for domestic stoves, grates, ranges and fireplaces, of the following descriptions:—(1) Firebricks and similar articles designed for use as fuel economizers. …
and then are given other things which do not effect the argument. We can take it that in the last Finance Act the Treasury intended to include fuel economisers which went into the grate within the scope of that Schedule. In point of fact, my case is proved by the fact that the Excise and Revenue accepted this fuel economiser as coming within the scope of the Schedule for the first nine months of the last financial year, until January, 1947. One type of fuel economiser which came within the scope of this Amendment was decided to be free of Purchase Tax. Then, for some reason of which I am not fully aware, the Excise people came forward with the plea that this instrument should not be included within the terms of the 1946 Act. From that moment, Purchase Tax was payable upon it at 33⅓ per cent. For the information of the Chancellor, I might say that

the Purchase Tax amounted to 14s. per implement. I think I will have to develop my case a little more fully, although I do not want to waste time.

Mr. Dalton: I have got details of the case here and I will deal with them in my reply.

Mr. York: We want to know whether the Chancellor accepts the principle that fuel economisers should be completely free provided they are approved by the Government Departments concerned. I ask him whether or not he will carry out the full implication of the 1946 Act.

Mr. Dalton: This is a simple matter. I think I can dispose of it, I hope to the hon. Member's satisfaction, very briefly. This relates to a contrivance called the "Everburner." That is a trade name. It is the case that we are deliberately committed to the exemption from Purchase Tax of fuel economisers. This article, which I am informed is made by one particular firm, is now being tested. The tests are not yet complete. They are being carried out by the Department concerned. If those tests should be satisfactory, I will be very glad to make a Treasury Order, which I have power to do, to add this appliance to those which are now exempted from Purchase Tax. The principle is quite clear. Fuel economisers, when fully tested and found to be in fact and not merely in name economisers, shall be exempted. This is now being tested and, assuming the tests are satisfactory, no difficulty will arise.

Mr. York: With that assurance, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

10.0 p.m.

Mr. Niall Macpherson: I beg to move, in page 63, line 41, at the end, to insert:
Stationery used for educational purposes.
The Chancellor may think that this Amendment offends against what he has already laid down, and that it is something that is being asked for on behalf of a particular type of user. I would like to maintain straightaway that it is not intended to do any such thing, as it is directed towards a particular kind of article. I think the Committee will agree with the general proposition that all aids to education should be made available as cheaply as possible. There is no Purchase Tax on textbooks used in schools, and I think the Chancellor must have overlooked this case, but, in any event, it is clear that leaving the Purchase Tax on educational stationery cannot primarily be due to the paper shortage. It may be that, since paper is short, tax on some forms of stationery may be quite defensible. For example, any tax that is directed to the minimum use of paper or to economy in the use of envelopes and things of that kind, would be defensible, but I submit that there is no reason to attack essential supplies where no economies can be effected.
At the present time, schools have to purchase stationery out of their grants. They cannot get enough stationery, not because the educational stationery is not available, but simply because their grants will not go far enough to enable them to get all the stationery they require. I would ask the Chancellor why he should expect them to pay back to him what he has already handed out to them by way of grant, especially in the case of educational stationery, and why that part of the grant which has been spent on stationery should be handed back to him? It may be that here, as in other cases, it is difficult for the Chancellor to draw the line, but the line has to be drawn somewhere. It would be quite easy, in my submission, to exempt stationery intended for educational purposes. What is admittedly difficult is to ensure that such stationery is in fact used for that purpose.
I do not think the Chancellor would encounter any very great difficulty in exempting educational stationery if he exempted such stationery as was actually supplied to the schools. He might, of course, put into force arrangements whereby supplies from wholesalers to schools should be available without the payment of the Purchase Tax. Even if he did not like that idea, I claim that educational stationery for schools could well be exempted from Purchase Tax, because the benefit to education would far outweigh the fact that a small number of persons might be able to buy stationery at a cheaper price in consequence of its exemption from the tax. I beg the Chancellor to see if he cannot accept this very moderate Amendment.

The Chairman: It might be convenient if, with this Amendment, the Committee also dealt with the Amendment standing in the names of the hon. Member for Greenwich (Mr. Reeves) and for Central Cardiff (Mr. G. Thomas), to insert "16 mm. cinematograph projectors."

Mr. Reeves: I would like to refer to the Amendment to exclude 16 millimetre cine projectors from Purchase Tax. When the Chancellor of the Exchequer presented his Budget last year, he excluded most of the 16 millimetre equipment from Purchase Tax, but, unfortunately, owing to what I consider to be an oversight, he failed to relieve the 16 millimetre projector from the Tax. This projector is used very largely for educational purposes, and the Ministry of Education have a big programme of film production which will be largely frustrated unless the 16 millimetre projector for exhibiting these films is available in larger numbers and as cheaply as possible. There is no doubt that voluntary bodies and educational authorities, when deciding whether to spend money on equipment of this kind, take into consideration the amount of Purchase Tax levied, and they very often feel that the matter might be deferred for some time in the hope that at some later date the Purchase Tax might be removed. All other forms of aids to education such as epidiascopes, episcopes, diascopes and film strip projectors have all been relieved of this tax, so that the solitary instrument which remains is the 16 millimetre projector, and it is felt that it would stimulate development in the field


of visual aids to education if the tax were removed from this projector.
I feel that the Chancellor is probably very sympathetically disposed towards doing this, and that it only needs a very strong appeal for him to do so. It will not mean very much in terms of finance. The Minister of Education envisages approximately 5,000 projectors in the schools, perhaps within the next ten years, and, therefore, the amount of money involved is not very much, but it would be a very great stimulus to this type of educational work if these projectors were relieved of the tax.

Mr. G. Thomas: I will not detain the Committee very long, but this is a matter of such importance to schools that I do not think hon. Members would begrudge a little time spent on this subject. There are many modern developments in education which have been made possible because the Ministry of Education have been encouraged by the Treasury to spend money upon the schools, and the question of visual aids to education is one which has come to the fore very much in recent years. There are various types of children who are helped especially by these visual aids, and since schools receive a per capita grant and cannot spend more than they receive, if they buy one of these cinematograph projectors their work in other directions will have to suffer as long as this Purchase Tax remains on these projectors. The whole field of education looks to the Chancellor, who has already been very generous tonight, to grant this further concession in the interests of education.

Mr. Glenvil Hall: The hon. Member for Dumfries (Mr. N. Macpherson) would have my right hon. Friend exempt from Purchase Tax stationery used for educational purposes. The whole Committee, of course, is interested in the advance of education. There can be no two views in any part of it on that matter. But I cannot accept this Amendament for two excellent reasons. The first is that it would be difficult—I do not say it would be impossible, because little is impossible to a real Labour Government—but it would certainly be very difficult to define what we mean by education. Those of us who have interested ourselves in the cultural theatre in connection with the

Entertainment Tax realise what differences of opinion there can be as to what is and what is not education; and it would be very difficult to define what is education.
But, chiefly, I have to reject the hon. Member's suggestion on the sufficient but very simple ground that it would be completely impossible to define or to know what the destination of the stationery he would exempt would be. Pens, pencils, ink, paper and all the rest of it are very much alike whether used for education or not, and it is impossible at the wholesale stage to know which are going to be used in schools and which are not. Therefore, I am sorry but I must ask the Committee to reject his Amendment.
I come now to the Amendment in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich (Mr. Reeves) and my hon. Friend the Member for Central Cardiff (Mr. G. Thomas). I am glad to say I can inform the Committee that my right hon. Friend is very willing to accept the Amendment. I am sorry that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Bristol (Mr. Stanley) has for the moment left the Chamber, because he twitted me with not being willing to accept an Amendment in connection with toothbrushes which would have cost £300,000; and now I am able to say that this concession, as compared with toothbrushes, is well worth while, and will cost only £100,000. But it will help educational advancement in our schools, and it will take off the tax which is at present levied on the 16 mm. cinematograph projector. I see the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Ayr Burghs (Sir T. Moore) in his place He has pressed over a long period for what my right hon. Friend is now doing, and I am sure that he for one will be delighted that at long last these projectors are to be exempt.

Mr. Butcher: I think the Committee will have heard with great satisfaction the Financial Secretary at last make an announcement of good news. We had the feeling that all the good news would come from the Chancellor, whilst all the stonewalling would come from his supporters, the Financial Secretary and the Solicitor-General. I expect the Solicitor-General looks forward to his turn, when he will be able to announce a slight revision of taxation. The Financial Secretary says his right


hon. Friend still suggests it is not possible to exempt educational stationery, which my hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries (Mr. N. Macpherson) pleaded should be exempt. The difficulties of the child under this real Labour Government are pretty grim at the present time. Having cleaned his teeth with a tooth brush subject to tax, he proceeds to put away his toys subject to tax in the cupboard, to go to school where he has to work with taxed stationery. I think that two years after the war this Chancellor and this Government, if they really wanted to help the children of this country and their parents, when they can exempt from taxation tobacco intended to be used by old people at the risk of there being a black market in that commodity, would have been able to have made a similar exemption of stationery to be used by schoolchildren. I can assure the Chancellor that it is very unlikely that there will be any black market in notebooks, exercise books, and slates.

10.15 p.m.

Colonel Gomme-Duncan: I wish to associate myself with the hon. Member for South Cardiff—

Mr. G. Thomas: Central Cardiff.

Colonel Gomme-Duncan: It is one of those corners of England with which I am not well acquainted.

Mr. Braddock: Speaking as a Scotsman?

Colonel Gomme-Duncan: I hope I always speak as a Scotsman. I am grateful to know that cinematograph projectors have bean exempted from tax. However, I am a little alarmed that the Financial Secretary should think that cinematograph projectors are more important to school children than tooth brushes. The fact of the matter is, of course, that it is the other way about. While we want cinematograph projectors exempted, tooth brushes are far more important. In the customary absence of representatives of the Scottish Office from the Government Front Bench in these discussions, I should like to emphasise that tooth brushes are surely more important than cinematograph projectors—

The Chairman: The hon. and gallant Member cannot now discuss an Amendment which has been dealt with already.

Sir T. Moore: This is the first time, and possibly the last, on which I have to thank the Chancellor of the Exchequer; not personally, of course, but in his capacity as head of the Treasury. I feel that I must register my gratitude for the concession he has given in the removal of this tax.

Question put, "That those words be there inserted."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 102; Noes, 253.

Division No. 261.]
AYES.
[10.18 p.m.


Assheton, Rt. Hon. R.
Dugdale, Maj. Sir T. (Richmond)
Maclay, Hon. J. S.


Actor, Hon. M.
Eccles, D. M.
Maitland, Comdr. J. W.


Baldwin, A. E.
Eden, Rt. Hon. A.
Manningham-Buller, R. E.


Barlow, Sir J.
Fletcher W. (Bury)
Marlowe, A. A. H.


Beechman, N. A.
Fraser, H. C. P. (Stone)
Marshall, D. (Bodmin)


Bennett, Sir P.
Fraser, Sir I. (Lonsdale)
Marshall, S. H. (Sutton)


Birch, Nigel
Gage, C.
Medlicott, F.


Boles, Ll.-Col. D. C. (Wells)
Gammans, L. D.
Molson, A. H. E.


Bower, N.
George, Maj. Rt. Hn. G. Lloyd (P'ke)
Moore, Lt.-Col. Sir T.


Boyd-Carpenter, J. A.
Gomme-Duncan, Col. A.
Neven-Spence, Sir B.


Bracken, Rt. Hon. Brendan
Grimston, R. V.
Noble, Comdr. A. H. P.


Braithwaite, Lt.-Comdr. J. G.
Hare, Hon. J. H. (Woodbridge)
Orr-Ewing, I. L.


Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W.
Harvey, Air-Cmdre. A. V.
Osborne, C.


Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.
Hogg, Hon. Q.
Price-While, Lt.-Col. D.


Carson, E.
Hollis, M. C.
Prior-Palmer, Brig. O.


Challen, C.
Holmes, Sir J. Stanley (Harwich)
Raikes, H. V.


Channon, H.
Howard, Hon. A.
Ramsay, Maj. S.


Clarke, Col. R. S.
Hudson, Rt. Hon. R. S. (Southport)
Rayner, Brig. R.


Clifton-Brown, Lt.-Col. G.
Hulbert, Wing-Cdr. N. J.
Robinson, Wing-Comdr Roland


Conant, Maj. R. J. E.
Kendall, W. D.
Ropner, Col. L.


Corbett, Lieut.-Col. U. (Ludlow)
Kerr, Sir J. Graham
Sanderson, Sir F.


Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F. C.
Lambert, Hon. G.
Spence, H. R.


Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.
Langford-Holt, J.
Stanley Rt. Hon. D.


Crowder, Capt. John E.
Linstead, H. N.
Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.


De la Bère, R.
Lipson, D. L.
Strauss, H. G. (English Universities)


Digby, S. W.
Lucas, Major Sir J.
Stuart, Rt. Hon. J. (Moray)


Donner, Sqn.-Ldr. P. W.
Lucas-Tooth, Sir H.
Studholme, H. G.


Dower, Lt.-Col. A. V. G. (Penrith)
MacDonald, Sir M. (Inverness)
Sutcliffe, H.


Drayson, G. B.
Mackeson, Brig. H. R.
Taylor C. S (Eastbourne)


Drewe, C.
McKie, J. H. (Galloway)
Taylor, Vice-Adm. E. A. (P'dd't'n, S.)




Thomas, J. P. L. (Hereford)
Walker-Smith, D.
Willoughby de Eresby, Lord


Thorp, Lt.-Col. R. A. F.
Ward, Hon. G. R.
York, C.


Touche, G. C.
Wheatley, Colonel M. J.



Vane, W. M. F.
White, J. B. (Canterbury)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Wadsworth, G.
Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge)
Mr. Butcher and




Mr. Niall Macpherson.




NOES.


Adams, W. T. (Hammersmith, South)
Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A. (Wakefield)
Murray, J. D.


Allen, A. C. (Bosworth)
Greenwood, A. W. J. (Heywood)
Nally, W.


Alpass, J. H.
Grenfell, D. R.
Neal, H. (Claycross)


Attewell, H. C.
Grierson, E.
Nichol Mrs. M. E. (Bradford, N.)


Austin, H. Lewis
Griffiths, D. (Rother Valley)
Nicholls, H. R. (Stratford)


Awbery, S. S.
Griffiths, Rt. Hon. J. (Llanelly)
Noel-Baker, Capt. F. E. (Brentford)


Ayles, W. H.
Griffiths, W. D. (Moss Side)
Noel-Buxton, Lady


Ayrton Gould, Mrs. B.
Gunter, R. J.
O'Brien, T.


Bacon, Miss A.
Guy, W. H.
Oldfield, W. H.


Baird, J.
Haire, John E. (Wycombe)
Oliver, G. H.


Balfour, A.
Hall, W. G.
Orbach, M.


Barnes, Rt. Hon. A. J.
Hamilton, Lieut.-Col. R.
Paget, R. T.


Barstow, P. G.
Hannan, W. (Maryhill)
Paling, Rt. Hon. Wilfred (Wentworth)


Barton, C.
Hardy, E. A.
Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)


Bechervaise, A. E.
Harrison, J.
Palmer, A. M. F.


Berry, H.
Henderson, Joseph (Ardwick)
Parkin, B. T.


Beswick, F.
Herbison, Miss M.
Paton, J. (Norwich)


Binns, J.
Hobson, C. R.
Peart, Thomas F.


Blackburn, A. R.
Holman, P.
Piratin, P.


Blenkinsop, A.
Holmes, H. E. (Hemsworth)
Platts-Mills, J. F. F.


Blyton, W. R.
House, G.
Poole, Major Cecil (Lichfield)


Bowles, F. G. (Nuneaton)
Hoy, J.
Popplewell, E.


Braddock, Mrs. E. M. (L'pl. Exch'ge)
Hudson, J. H. (Ealing, W.)
Porter, E. (Warrington)


Braddock, T (Mitcham)
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Price, M. Philips


Brooks, T. J. (Rothwell)
Hughes, H. D. (Wolverhampton, W.)
Pritt, D. N.


Brown, George (Belper)
Hutchinson, H. L. (Rusholme)
Proctor, W. T.


Brown, T. J. (Ince)
Hynd, H. (Hackney, C.)
Pryde, D. J.


Bruce, Maj. D. W. T.
Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)
Randall, H. E.


Buchanan, G.
Irving, W. J.
Ranger, J.


Burden, T. W.
Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A.
Rankin, J.


Burke, W. A.
Janner, B.
Reeves, J.


Butler, H. W. (Hackney, S.)
Jay, D. P. T.
Reid, T. (Swindon)


Champion, A. J.
Jeger, Dr S. W. (St. Pancras, S.E.)
Richards, R.


Cobb, F. A.
John, W.
Robens, A.


Cocks, F. S.
Jones, Rt. Hon. A. C. (Shipley)
Robertson, J. J. (Berwick)


Coldrick, W.
Jones, D. T. (Hartlepools)
Rogers, G. H. R.


Collindridge, F.
Jones, Elwyn (Plaistow)
Ross, William (Kilmarnock)


Colman, Miss G. M.
Jones, P. Asterley (Hitchin)
Royle, C.


Comyns, Dr. L.
Keenan, W.
Sargood, R.


Cook, T. F.
Kinghorn, Sqn.-Ldr. E.
Scollan, T.


Corbet, Mrs. F. K. (Camb'well, N.W.)
Kinley, J.
Scott-Elliot, W.


Corlett, Dr. J.
Lang, G.
Segal, Dr. S.


Corvedale, Viscount
Lee, F. (Hulme)
Shackleton, E. A. A.


Daggar, G.
Lee, Miss J. (Cannock)
Sharp, Granville


Daines, P.
Levy, B. W.
Shawcross, C. N. (Widnes)


Dalton, Rt. Hon. H.
Lewis, A. W. J. (Upton)
Shawcross, Rt. Ht. Sir H. (St. Helens)


Davies, Edward (Burslem)
Lindgren, G. S.
Shurmer, P.


Davies, Harold (Leek)
Lindsay, K. M. (Comb'd Eng. Univ.)
Silverman, J. (Erdington)


Davies, Hadyn (St. Pancras, S.W.)
Lipton, Lt.-Col. M.
Skeffington, A. M.


Deer, G.
Logan, D. G.
Skinnard, F. W.


de Freitas, Geoffrey
Longden, F.
Smith, C. (Colchester)


Diamond, J.
Lyne, A. W.
Snow, Capt J. W.


Dobbie, W.
McAdam, W.
Solley, L. J.


Dodds, N. N.
McAllister, G.
Sorensen, R. W.


Donovan, T.
McGhee, H. G.
Soskice, Maj. Sir F.


Duberg, T. E. N.
Mack, J. D.
Stamford, W.




Stubbs, A. E.


Dugdale, J. (W. Bromwich)
Mackay, R. W. G. (Hull, N.W.)
Swingler, S.


Dumpleton, C. W.
McKinlay, A. S.
Symonds, A. L.


Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.
Maclean, N. (Govan)
Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)


Edwards, N. (Caerphilly)
McLeavy, F.
Taylor, Dr. S. (Barnet)


Evans, John (Ogmore)
Macpherson, T. (Romford)
Thomas, D. E. (Aberdare)


Evans, S. N. (Wednesbury)
Mallalieu, J. P. W.
Thomas, I. O. (Wrekin)


Fairhurst, F.
Mann, Mrs. J.
Thomas, George (Cardiff)


Farthing, W. J.
Manning, Mrs. L. (Epping)
Thurtle, Ernest


Field Capt. W. J.
Marquand, H. A.
Timmons, J.


Fletcher, E. G. M. (Islington, E.)
Marshall, F. (Brightside)
Titterington, M. F.


Follick, M.
Mathers, G.
Tolley, L.


Forman, J. C.
Messer, F.
Turner-Samuels, M.


Freeman, Maj. J. (Watford)
Mikardo, Ian
Ungoed-Thomas, L.


Freeman, Peter (Newport)
Mitchison G. R.
Usborne, Henry


Gaitskell, H. T. N.
Monslow, W.
Vernon, Maj. W. F.


Gallacher, W.
Morgan, Dr. H. B.
Viant, S. P.


Gibbins, J.
Morley, R.
Walkden, E.


Gibson, C. W.
Morris, Lt.-Col. H. (Sheffield, C.)
Walker, G. H.


Gilzean, A.
Morris, P. (Swansea, W.)
Wallace, G. D. (Chislehurst)


Glanville, J. E. (Consett)
Mort, D. L.
Watson, W. M.


Goodrich, H. E.
Moyle, A.
Weitzman, D.







Wells, P. L. (Faversham)
Willey, O. G. (Cleveland)
Woods, G. S.


Wells, W. T. (Walsall)
Williams, D. J. (Neath)
Wyatt, W.


West, D. G.
Williams, J. L. (Kelvingrove)
Yates, V. F.


White, H. (Derbyshire, N.E.)
Williams, Rt. Hon. T. (Don Valley)
Young, Sir R. (Newton)


Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.
Williams, W. R. (Heston)
Zilliacus, K.


Wilcock, Group-Capt. C. A. B.
Willis, E.



Wilkins, W. A.
Wills, Mrs. E. A.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Willey, F. T. (Sunderland)
Wilson, J. H.
Mr. Pearson and Mr. Simmons.

10.30 p.m.

The Chairman: The next Amendment I propose to call is that in the name of the noble Lady the Member for Anglesey (Lady Megan Lloyd George), and I propose that the Amendments in the name of the noble Lady the Member for Norwich (Lady Noel-Buxton), the name of the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for North Portsmouth (Major Bruce) and the hon. Member for Dumfries (Mr. N. Macpherson) should be discussed at the same time.

Mr. Wadsworth: I beg to move, in page 63, line 41, at the end, to insert, "children's toys."
Last year a similar Amendment was moved by my noble Friend the Member for Anglesey (Lady Megan Lloyd George) in a very convincing speech, and it was well received by the Chancellor on that occasion. I am sorry that my noble Friend is not here tonight, and that I have to take her place, because I feel that this Amendment would have borne fruit had she been here to propose it. We feel that the Government have not approached this question of children's toys from the proper point of view, because, by their tax of 33⅓ per cent., it seems that they consider toys a luxury, whereas we take the view that they are essentials, and have an important part to play in the development of child life. They have an educational advantage from the cradle to the—I think I had better not complete that sentence. However, I can safely say that the easel, chalk, slate, and the child's bricks all help in the formation of a child's character from an early age. Who knows but that some of the greatest inventions ever made owe their success to playing with a child's bricks at an early age?
Therefore, we feel that from this point of view the Chancellor of the Exchequer should concede this Amendment. But there is another important point, and that is the present cost of children's toys. I have made recent inquiries regarding the prices of children's toys and find that they are, on the average, four times as

much as they were before the war. That is due, to a great extent, to the Purchase Tax. I have made specific inquiries and have found that a ball which cost sixpence before the war, today costs 4s., which is eight times the prewar price. A doll which formerly cost 15., today costs 6s. 5d. I should point out that these are today's prices, because I made my inquiries this afternoon. A doll which formerly cost 3s., now costs 13s. 6d., and a tricycle formerly priced at two guineas is sold today for eight guineas. When the ex-Serviceman came out of the Army, the first thing he did, if he had children, was to buy toys for them. At that time, therefore, they did not mind the prices. But today the prices enter into the picture to a large extent because—and I would ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer to appreciate this—as the prices increase, so does the Purchase Tax; because it is based on the wholesale prices. That is why there is a great difference between the prices in 1939 and the prices today. But there is, I find, a great difference between the prices of even 12 months ago and those of today. We should realise that the children are the one section of the community who cannot speak for themselves. Hon. Members may laugh at that; but perhaps I should say, they are the one section who cannot speak for themselves in this House. Therefore, I would urge the Chancellor of the Exchequer to concede our request.

Lady Noel-Buxton: I would like to draw the Chancellor's attention to the matter of children's reins. When we go to buy leads for our dogs, we are able to buy them complete with harness, such as the lead I have here, which is for a peke or pug, to keep them perfectly safe, and we pay no Purchase Tax. But when we buy children's reins, which are exactly the same things, to safeguard our children, we have to pay Purchase Tax at the rate of 33⅓ per cent. It is the duty of any Government to help parents to keep their children in safety. It is true that it is only a question of a shilling or two, but I need not remind a Socialist Chancellor of the Exchequer


that there are thousands of homes in this country in which every penny counts. The question is more important today because of the shortage of perambulators, coupled with the praiseworthy rise in the birth-rate, in which I may say that my constituency is playing its part. Through the scarcity of perambulators these reins are more important than ever when children reach the age of toddlers. I ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer to make a sympathetic gesture to the courageous mothers of this country, and to take the cold hand of the Purchase Tax off these children's reins.

Major Bruce: I wish to draw the attention of the Committee to the Amendment on the Paper—in page 63, line 41, at end insert "Children's playground equipment." For a large number of years now there has been a tendency on the part of a growing number of local authorities throughout Great Britain—and on the part of other bodies as well—to instal in school playgrounds, or in playgrounds under the jurisdiction of the local authority, this playground equipment. They may be open air playgrounds or otherwise. I am not sure if the words in this Amendment precisely cover the apparatus I have in mind. But I am sure the Chancellor and everybody on either side of the Committee would agree that it is important that children's playgrounds should be as attractive as possible. I say this in the knowledge that the Minister of Transport has embarked on a "Keep Death Off The Road" campaign and if there is one thing which will attract children from the roads, it is the satisfactory playground where they can disport themselves without any possible danger from traffic.
During the war the majority of local authorities and other educational bodies found it difficult to get this equipment because, as we all know, our national effort was diverted to other channels and there are no doubt arrears to make up. The price of this equipment has increased. There are local authorities contemplating large programmes for the installation of playground equipment and those same local authorities, such as Portsmouth, have often suffered during the war and their rate burden is a severe one indeed. If the equipment to which I refer was removed from the ambit of the tax, it

would help them. The Chancellor may say it is impossible to segregate the equipment for the body by whom it is supposed to be used. He may say that if he exempts equipment for local authorities he will have to exempt this equipment for all who may buy it. But the amount used by other bodies is small. But I will concede that point although I cannot see why this equipment cannot be exempt anyway. If the Chancellor would visit holiday camps, he would see that private limited companies are installing this equipment. I would like the Chancellor to consider this, although, as I have said, I do not know if he will approve of the precise wording.

Mr. N. Macpherson: I wish to refer to the Amendment in my name and the names of my hon. Friends to insert "Children's toys costing less than 10s." I associate myself with everything the hon. Member for Buckrose (Mr. Wadsworth) has said regarding Purchase Tax on children's toys.

Mr. Howard: On a point of Order, Major Milner. Do I understand that this Amendment is now to be discussed, because there are other Amendments before it on the Paper which, I understand, are not to be called. I merely say this because I want to save the Amendment which stands in my name, and which I understand you will call.

The Chairman: It will be called in due course.

Mr. Howard: I understood the hon. Member who had just risen was moving another Amendment.

The Chairman: The hon. Member is speaking to another Amendment without moving it.

Mr. Macpherson: While I associate myself very fully with what my hon. Friend the Member for Buckrose has said, it may be that the Chancellor of the Exchequer will not feel himself prepared to go the whole length in exempting toys this year. Should that be so, I would urge him very strongly to consider, at any fate, exempting the cheaper ranges of toys. As my hon. Friend the Member for Buckrose has said, toys play a very great part in the lives of children not only from the educational point of view, but in the relationships between parents and children. That


there should be a Purchase Tax on the cheaper toys is a very great handicap indeed in the strengthening of those relations, which have to be cemented at a very early age. I would ask the Chancellor to consider, at any rate, the necessity of strengthening the home life, as I feel certain that this would be the effect of my Amendment in the poorer homes which this type of toy particularly affects. May I just say one word regarding the matter to which the noble Lady the Member for Norwich (Lady Noel-Buxton) has referred. She showed us two exhibits. I am not quite certain that exhibit A and exhibit B were exactly on all fours. Exhibit A is apparently intended to protect what is on exhibit B. I would like to support very much what she had to say. I might suggest to the Committee perhaps that, while it is extremely desirable that there should be a concession along these lines, the children who are taught to walk and who are protected by means of children's reins are also perhaps being given a foretaste of the kind of harness which, maybe,, their elders at the present time are having to experience under the present Administration.

Mr. Glenvil Hall: The actual Amendment moved was the one moved by my hon. Friend, the noble Lady the Member for Norwich (Lady Noel-Buxton). [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Nevertheless, I gather we are now discussing a group of four Amendments—one moved, or rather spoken to, by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Buckrose (Mr. Wadsworth), who would exempt children's toys; another in the name of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Dumfries (Mr. N. Macpherson), who would exempt children's toys costing less than 10s.; and another in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, which would exempt children's reins; and the fourth in the name of my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for North Portsmouth (Major Bruce), who wants to exempt children's playground equipment. I think that now I have got this right.
10.45 p.m.
I am very happy to say that my right hon. Friend accepts straight away the suggestion that children's reins should be exempt. Actually the phrase "children's reins" is not the proper description of what I think the noble Lady has in mind; from her speech I understood that she

really intends to convey that children's safety reins and harness should be exempt. There is a difference, a very real one, because these reins do assist mothers in the street when they are shopping to hold the child in check, and are rather different from what many people understand by the phrase "children's reins." As far as the suggestion made by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for North Portsmouth is concerned, I am sorry to say we cannot possibly accept his suggestion. It is quite impossible to define what is children's playground equipment. We cannot in an Act of Parliament or a Schedule define with any accuracy what would be meant or what he means by that phrase. I say quite frankly that there is no good reason why we should in this way relieve local authorities of what, after all, is their obligation to the children in their areas. Therefore, my right hon. Friend regrets that he is quite unable to accept the suggestion put forward by my hon. and gallant Friend. Now I come to the suggestion made by the two branches of the Liberal Party.

Mr. Frank Byers: Conservative and Liberal.

Mr. Glenvil Hall: If I may say so without offence, the Liberal Party pure and simple has been a little clearer in its thinking than the Liberal Party which, shall I say, sits in the ante-chamber of the Conservative Party. It is one thing to exempt children's toys because we know roughly what is meant, but it is another to know what a child's toy costing less than 10s. can be. I am not sure whether the hon. Gentleman the Member for Dumfries really refers to 10s. as the retail or the wholesale price. If it is the retail price, we know where we are, but if it is the wholesale price—

Mr. Stanley: Which was the right hon. Gentleman referring to when he was talking about the one thousand pound car? No doubt he meant it in the same way.

Mr. Glenvil Hall: I do not know whether that is relevant to this particular subject. We are now dealing with toys and not with a motor car which I imagine at that price is something more than a toy, although I realise that to some members of the party opposite it would be described perhaps as a toy and by, my hon. Friends on the side of the House


as a rich man's toy. It would be interesting to know what my hon. Friend has in mind, whether it is the retail or wholesale price. If it is wholesale, then, frankly, the retail price could be something quite high. One can buy wholesale toys at a fairly cheap rate but when they reach the retail shops and are sold to the public the price becomes, as it has done, unfortunately, quite fantastic. Secondly, it would, we believe, lend itself to manipulation. If it is the view that toys below 10s. wholesale are to be exempt and those above are not, it would be perfectly simple for the wholesaler to invoice articles in such a way that they could keep the price below the 10s. limit, although actually, when they arrived in the shop and were sold, by manipulation, quite a good price could be shown. Finally, on the question of exempting children's toys, the cost would be in the nature of £7,000,000, so the Committee will understand how impossible it is for my right hon. Friend to look at this proposal. He is anxious that children should have good toys as cheaply as possible, but it would be too high a cost at the present juncture in our history for a sum of that dimension to be given away in this direction.

Sir Ian Fraser: I am sure members of the Housewives' League and other ladies will rejoice at the concession which has been made, but I speak on behalf of Christopher, Neill and Caroline, my grandchildren, with whom I had tea today. They will be gravely disappointed that the toys in which they are interested are not to be relieved of duty. They are not interested in reins but in soldiers, engines and dollies, and on their behalf I ask the Financial Secretary and the Chancellor to reconsider this matter.

Mr. George Wallace: I will not keep the Committee very long, but I want vigorously to support the hon. and gallant Member in his plea for the relief of Purchase Tax on playground equipment. This equipment is urgently needed in many areas to keep "death off the roads." I support his argument completely, but I would put another point. It the fashion today, in some quarters, to talk about the overburdened housewife. It is not something new on these benches and especially as far as I am concerned. I

would draw attention to the very important activities which take place during the summer holidays in working class areas. I refer to the Play Leadership Scheme. It is a scheme sponsored by very many progressive local authorities and backed up by trained play leaders of the National Council of Physical and Recreative Training.
I can speak with some experience on this very important matter. I was chairman for some time of a local committee responsible for inaugurating a scheme. I know that during the summer period this scheme was operating one could hardly find a child on the streets except in the early hours of the morning when the children met the play leader at the station. One of the essential factors in the success of the scheme is the supply of efficient equipment in the parks selected for the purpose. This is not a question of taking Purchase Tax off toys. It is far more important. Not only does the child benefit morally, but he has instilled into him the spirit of leadership. The mother, the over-burdened housewife in the working class home, is relieved also. The mother in the average working class home usually looks forward to at least one week's holiday in the year. For the rest of the summer months she has to do her house work and run errands to the shops and put up with the children in the home as well. I do not claim that any child is an angel. There are times when they get on the nerves of their mothers. That is where this scheme comes in. There should be some relation of Purchase Tax in order that these schemes might go ahead in the summer months. I feel quite strongly on this point. The scheme has not been generally known and on that score, and from my own personal experience of its value, I would stress its importance. If it saves one child's life the expenditure has been worth while. With this point of view in mind I would appeal to the Chancellor to have a chat with me afterwards. This is not just a question of toys, but of vital equipment needed for child welfare.

Mr. Beechman: The Financial Secretary to the Treasury has succeeded tonight in doing what no other person has succeeded in doing before: he has united the Liberals. The pure agree with the simple. Speaking on behalf of the pure, I say that the right hon. Gentleman has


found a response to this appeal throughout the Committee. He said he did not know at what level, wholesale or retail, the relief was to be given. It must be well known that the Purchase Tax is taken off or reduced at certain levels. What we suggest is that the relief should be given on the cheaper toys at the retail stage. Everybody in this Committee knows full well what difficulties there are at, say, Chirstmas-time for the ordinary mother in the ordinary home where there is not a very big income to buy toys at sufficiently low prices to give her children. One home after another had their happiness destroyed, or greatly reduced, by this insufficiency of toys, owing to their expense, although we could encourage the making of toys in this country greatly if this step were taken. I am greatly surprised that the Financial Secretary should assist the noble Lady in what seems to be maintaining unnecessary controls and not doing that which would bring joy and happiness into the average home. We are told that the concession with regard to toys will cost £7 million. I do not know at what level this sum was worked out. What I want to know is how much it would cost to bring a sufficiency of toys into the homes of the average people at Christmas time—to reduce the Purchase Tax on toys of the cheaper sorts which, I hope very much, will be made in our own country.

Mr. Byers: I do not want to enter into the arena of party politics and join issue with the new recruits of the Conservative Party, but I would seriously ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer to look at this problem again. I quite agree that £7 million is a big figure and one which the Chancellor must carefully consider before he accedes to a request of this nature. On the other hand, I had always supposed that the principle underlying Purchase Tax—and, after all, we were delighted with that dissertation on the underlying principles which the Financial Secretary to the Treasury gave us last night—was that wherever possible it should be applied to luxuries rather than to necessities. That being so, it seems to me that in looking round for a source of revenue, the Chancellor has hit on a wrong source. Toys, and particularly children' playground equipment, are to my mind a necessity. I am not thinking of the fancy toys—the £15 10s. jeeps and things of that sort. There are a certain number of toys

which in effect are necessities and, therefore, I ask the right hon. Gentleman to look at this again from that point of view.
11.0 p.m.
The right hon. Gentleman had no difficulty whatever in drawing a line between different types of motor cars. When he wanted to put the Purchase Tax up he had no difficulty in striking a level. That level happened to be £1,000, a good round figure. Could not the same principle be applied in the case of toys—that Purchase Tax should not be levied on necessities, but only on luxuries? That would mean that he would have to find an alternative source of taxation. I agree that it is difficult, but it is up to the Treasury—people have suggested betting, football pools and so on—and I do not believe it is beyond the wit of the Treasury to suggest a tax that would bring in the £3,000,000 or £4,000,000 which the concession might cost. I do not think the cost would amount to £7,000,000. They would not have to take the tax off all these fancy toys, but only off those below a certain level. In so doing they would give great pleasure to a great number, and I hope the right hon. Gentleman will look at this again from that point of view.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: The Financial Secretary did not really answer the argument of the hon. and gallant Member for North Portsmouth (Major Bruce) on playground equipment, but tried to ride off on practical difficulties. I suggest to him that it would be perfectly feasible to schedule a list of equipment which it would be possible to free from tax, and that the list could be so drafted as to, include only the apparatus needed for the particular purpose. Before the Financial Secretary rides off on practical difficulties I think it is up to him to consider that. The only other matter to which I would invite the attention of the Committee is this—the amazing consequence of the Financial Secretary arguing that he cannot take the Purchase Tax off toys because of the cost to the Exchequer. It leaves us in this fantastic position, that if an hon. Member decides to purchase a toy for a child he has to pay tax, but if he desires to put a bet on a dog he does not pay tax. I hope the country will be interested to learn that it is an essential condition of Socialist finance to raise money by the taxation of children's toys.

Mr. Butcher: I hope the Financial Secretary will reconsider his views on this question of the children's playground equipment, which is perhaps one of the most practical exemptions that could be made by the Finance Bill. It is an astonishing thing that on the same Bill the Chancellor of the Exchequer should move that rowing boats specially designed as racing boats should bear tax at a lower rate, although these things are after all the recreation of an extremely limited number drawn in the main from the public schools, and that the Financial Secretary should refuse to give a similar relief on children's playground equipment, which is the absolute necessity of the ordinary children in the streets our cities. I believe there is one reason why this is done. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, is one of the most astute politicians in this House. He is always balancing the finances to make an appeal to the electorate, and he realises that the children have no votes.

Mr. Gallacher: I want to make an appeal to the Chancellor to give further consideration to this question of children's playground equipment and toys. The Financial Secretary referred earlier on another Amendment to the amount of the cost. The Chancellor will understand that in a working class family where there are a number of children toys for each of the children, while separately not costing a great deal, come to a considerable amount when all are taken together. I would remind the Chancellor of that classic Latin proverb "Every mickle makes a muckle." A little to some people might mean a good deal to a working class home. I know there are difficulties in the way, but I hope he can see his way to do something. When the Chancellor was young he had a toy I am sure, and it was probably an abacus. I am sure that he will give sympathetic consideration to the question. Before I sit down I should like to express my regret that on this group of Amendments on children's toys the Closure has not been applied.

Captain Crookshank: I am sure that the Communist Party did not expect to have the last word on this matter.

Mr. Gallacher: Not while the right hon. and gallant Gentleman is here.

Captain Crookshank: The Chancellor has now listened to the Debate and I hope, therefore, that he will reconsider this question and see whether it is possible to have any kind of differentiation. It is now clear what was meant by the 10s. cost. When the original Amendment was before the Committee the Financial Secretary to the Treasury said that if children's toys were exempt it would cost £7 million, and I am bound to say that that is a considerable obstacle. In present circumstances it is doubtful if the Budget could stand such a loss of taxation, and, therefore, I would not be inclined to agree that the Chancellor should forego such an amount, but it looks as if some alleviation might be made now that the Chancellor has heard the Debate. I do not ask him to make any promise tonight, but if it were possible to do something, though not at a cost of £7 million, I think he should look at it again. It might be possible to exempt the cheaper kind of toys in some degree, and if he could do that the Chancellor would be doing a great service to the children with whose interests we are all concerned.

Mr. Byers: Could we have some assurance from the Chancellor that he will at least look at this matter again, because unless he can give that assurance I feel we ought to divide the Committee? I am certain that last year on this matter he said that he would look at it and e have not pressed him to accept this Amendment in the light of the information given. I feel that we are entitled as a Committee to some indication that the Chancellor's mind is not entirely closed in this matter.

Mr. Dalton: I have listened to the Debate and it has been very interesting in several aspects. With regard to the playground equipment there is no difference of view as to the value, as my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for North Portsmouth (Major Bruce) described it, but the objection which my right hon. Friend the Financial Secretary quite properly took was the difficulty as to lack of definition. We cannot frame a Statute on the basis of good intentions and a warm heart. It is not my fault if this Amendment is completely unenforceable and meaningless in terms of the law. On the other hand, I gave an undertaking to my hon. and gallant Friend which I repeat publicly that if he will try to


get some little precision into his ideas on this matter I shall be glad to look at it, but I must have clearly defined objects laid down and then I will look at it.
The question of toys is a very much more difficult problem. I am glad to find there is no suggestion that, at this stage, we should forego £7,000,000. I hope I give no offence to any trader, but the trade both in the manufacture of toys and distribution of them—either wholesale and retail—is pretty chaotic. It is not a thing which price control would alter, though, when I was President of the Board of Trade, I tried to get a reasonable control of prices to prevent profiteering. It is a difficult thing to do, and, very frankly, I am not at all sure—this is like certain other cases we have discussed previously—that the mere removal of the Purchase Tax is going to benefit parents or children. I am prepared to go on looking at it, but I can give no undertaking between now and the Report stage. The whole production and distribution of toys is conducted in such a fashion that I am doubtful whether it is possible to draw an administrable line. It is said with regard to a motor car that you can draw a line, but the production of motor cars is conducted in a more orderly manner, and is highly arranged so that the total number of objects concerned is very small. Here there are a great many miscellaneous articles produced in a variety of ways, and under varied conditions, so that it is extremely difficult to make a workable definition. I cannot give any undertaking this year, except in connection with playground equipment.

Amendment negatived.

Mr. Howard: I beg to move, in page 63, line 41, at the end, to insert:
Industrial gloves including mittens, mitts or gauntlets made of—

(a) Leather with palms having metals reinforcements, or
(b) Cotton or fabric and leather palms with or without reinforcement."
It is quite unnecessary in a Committee, which has the experience such as Members here possess, to attempt to run through the various occupations, trades and jobs for the proper performance of which industrial gloves are absolutely essential. I base my case on the simple argument that these gloves are essential for two purposes. They help to preserve

health and to promote production. I will not go into every detailed argument for this particular type of article being exempted from Purchase Tax, but I wish to raise one other point on account of a remark which the Financial Secretary made in reply to a previous Amendment. It is very dangerous to take the line that because the overall cost of an article may be small, therefore, it does not matter adding the tax to it. Whatever tax may be added to an article must increase its cost. And if you add to the cost of an article it surely must act, to a certain extent, as a deterrent to the purchase of that article. We do not want to deter people from purchasing industrial gloves. We want to encourage people to purchase these gloves and I will say no more in support of this particular Amendment.

11.15 p.m.

Sir P. Bennett: I would like to support this Amendment. I will not add to what my hon. Friend has said beyond saying that we are doing all we can to urge the improvement of conditions for the workers. Industrial hygiene is being put in the front of the programme; we are asked by the doctors and other industrial advisers to provide gloves, and, naturally, we do so. As industry is spending its own money, equally it is entitled to ask the Government to help in whatever our medical and welfare advisers put in front of us. But there are a large number of smaller firms who have not those advantages, and to whom expense is a great consideration. We are anxious to extend, as far as possible, the use of safety provisions to prevent poisoning of the hands and the spread of disease. The prevention of absenteeism through illness and poisoning would, on the whole, save the country more money that the Chancellor of the Exchequer will ever gain by continuing this Purchase Tax. I hope he will grant this request, and I beg leave to support the Amendment.

Mr. Dalton: I am sympathetic to this request, and if we can get a proper definition, I am prepared to accept the suggestion. But here again I must point out that the matter is not quite so easy as it looks on paper. You have, if I am to do what I am asked to do, and what I would like to do, to have a definition of certain classes of gloves which


are used by industrial workers for protection in carrying out certain processes, and used by them only. I will have this matter looked into and see if we can frame an administrative definition. If that can be done, I will put down something for the Report stage. Conceivably it will not be possible to do it, but that will not be our fault.

Mr. Godfrey Nicholson: On a point of Order, may I ask if that will include gloves used by hedgers and ditchers, and people doing such work?

Mr. Dalton: That illustrates what happens in these cases. I thought we were talking primarily of men working in dangerous occupations. I have done a certain amount of hedging and ditching myself, in a somewhat unskilled fashion. This question shows how one may get pushed on from point to point. I think we had better stick to industry in the narrow sense, and have some thought, as I gathered that the mover and supporter intended, to protect the hands of the workers against noxious chemicals, fumes and so on.

Mr. Nicholson: I would not like anything I have said to militate against the Chancellor of the Exchequer's consideration of the needs of other industries. But I would just remind the Chancellor that hedging and ditching, and the laying of a quickset fence certainly need gloves.

Mr. Howard: While I had considered that the definition on the Paper would have been sufficiently clear, in view of the manner in which the Chancellor of the Exchequer has received this Amendment, and because I understand that if words can be found to meet the case he will meet us, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

The Chairman: There are on the Order Paper Amendments dealing with various sports requisites, and I would suggest that when hon. Members have put down Amendments dealing with such requisites the Committee should discuss them at the same time.

Mr. G. Thomas: On a point of Order, Major Milner, may I ask whether that means that a number of the Amendments

are not to be discussed? There is one in my name and the name of an hon. Member opposite which comes second on Page 3779 of the Order Paper. Does your statement mean that this is ruled out?

The Chairman: There will be an opportunity for discussion.

Mr. Digby: I beg to move, in page 64, line 10, after "descriptions," to insert, "nets."
I also have the following Amendments—in line 12, at beginning, insert, "Football goal nets"; in line 14, after "descriptions," insert, "goal nets"; in line 16, at end, insert, "Tennis nets."
The object of these Amendments, or of the first three, is to correct an omission from the proposal regarding the reduction of Purchase Tax on certain sports equipment. The object of the fourth Amendment is to include in the games for which sports equipment is to have a reduced rate, the game of tennis. In this game, the principal item, apart from the court, is the net. The first three Amendments also deal with the question of nets. The effect of the Bill, as it stands at present, is to provide a reduced rate for football, cricket, and hockey requisites. It sets out the requisites for these games with the rather surprising omission of netting. I should perhaps explain that my constituency has a very special interest in this matter, for, from time very far back, nets and ropes were made in Bridport. It is recorded that King John, when he wanted hawsers for his ships, sent to Bridport. The rope and netting industry has been carried out in Bridport for a long time, and I think I am correct in saying that all the sports netting for this country is made in Bridport. These Amendments are clearly of importance to my constituents; it is of importance that this omission should be rectified. It is also of the greatest importance for all those who indulge in these three games, and in the game of lawn tennis.
Perhaps I should say something about the amount of money involved in Purchase Tax on netting for the purposes of cricket, football, and hockey. When I remind the Committee that a full-size cricket net of good quality costs £21 16s. 10d., on which the tax is over £7, and on the cheapest quality it is £6, it


will be realised that this is a matter of importance. The people buying these nets are not always individuals, but often schools, and it will be seen that the nets constitute very heavy items. In the case of football nets, the cost is less. The tax for a pair of football nets is 50s., and in the case of hockey, it is a little more than that.
It may be that this was a chance omission—that the Chancellor' really did not intend the Bill should be as it is in this respect—and that it was not meant that netting should be excluded from the other items necessary to carry on these sports. The Chancellor may say that netting is not necessary for these three particular games, and that one does not need to practice at a cricket net at all. One can just carry on and play the game without nets. I would remind the right hon. Gentleman that he has included other items in his list which are not necessary. I will give the example of shinguards for football. They are not necessary, so the argument that these nets are not necessary does not seem to be a solid one. The second argument which the Chancellor may bring forward is that he wishes to assist individuals and not clubs. I do not know; that may be his intention, but, if it is, I do not see why he has included stumps and bails in his list, because individuals do not carry their own stumps and bails. These are provided for the individual by the club or school.
I should say that the people who will buy these nets—and this applies especially in the case of cricket nets—will very largely be schools which have limited funds. It is an interesting fact that the largest purchasers of cricket nets are local authorities, so that the right hon. Gentleman is imposing a special burden on local authorities by refusing to make this concession in the case of nets. I very much hope that the Chancellor of the Exchequer will look at this matter again. I really think that it is an anomaly and that it must be a mistake and I would be very grateful if he would give careful consideration to this matter.

Mr. Spence: I beg to move, the Amendment—

The Chairman: Other Amendments analogous to those under consideration should be discussed and not moved.

Mr. Spence: Thank you, Sir. The Amendment to which I wish to draw the attention of the Chancellor of the Exchequer on this Schedule is that relating to the exemption of golf clubs from Purchase Tax. I have perhaps an experience of golf that is in certain senses unique because I design golf clubs. I have been a member of golf clubs for many years and have followed their progress in Scotland. Golf occupies a position as a natural game in Scotland different from the position which it occupies in England. Golf in Scotland is a game of the people. Today we have clubs in my part of the world where the membership fee is as low as 15s. or so for apprentice golfers and where the adult subscription is 30s. There are many clubs with a fee of £2 and two guineas and so on. The working people of Scotland play golf as a national and normal recreation. The problem is this: the cheapest club one can buy today costs £2 10s. or more. We have many men back from the Forces and many young people growing up who want to take up the game of golf and cannot do so because they cannot afford to pay for six or seven clubs at two or three pounds apiece.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer is now going to consider the points made regarding various items of sports equipment. I would ask him to give particular attention to the cheaper range of golf clubs used by the masses of the people. He has given way on various matters and he has refused to give way on others but I do put it to him that in looking at the question of Purchase Tax on golf clubs, he must view the Scottish position from a different angle from that of the English one, because the reason for golf in Scotland is that many parts of the country are a natural golf course. For that reason it is a truly democratic game and should be supported by the right hon. Gentleman and I hope he will give some consideration to the cheaper range of golf clubs so that they might be exempted from tax.

11.30 p.m.

Mr. Wadsworth: I have two Amendments on the Order Paper, one dealing with golf balls and the other with rowing boats. I am taking the opportunity of eliciting from the Chancellor how he arrives at a decision whether he will reduce the tax on one article or another. Has he a points system? How does he


decide that cricket balls should be reduced in the amount of Purchase Tax and not golf balls? Is there a sort of class distinction? I sincerely hope not because I think that Purchase Tax should be applied over a broad field and if the Chancellor makes a concession it should be made over a broad field. The same applies to toys. Toy sailing yachts and rowing boats are to be exempt, but ordinary rowing boats still pay Purchase Tax. There appears to be inconsistency in this matter and I should be glad if the Chancellor will take this opportunity of explaining why Purchase Tax is applied here and not there and if there is any plan behind it all.

Colonel Gomme-Duncan: I would like especially to apply myself to the requisites for shinty. I am happy to have given you, Major Milner, some cause for merriment but there are lots of people who do not know what shinty is.

The Chairman: I am a Yorkshireman.

Colonel Gomme-Duncan: I have never attempted to argue with a Yorkshireman and would not do so even if you were not in the Chair. Shinty is much played in the North of Scotland. [Interruption.] There seems to be misunderstanding on the subject of shinty. It is true that they do play golf in Scotland. In fact all people, practically, play golf in the North of Scotland but they also play shinty. It would not affect the Chancellor financially to any extent in the amount involved. There are a large number of clubs who play this game and it would be a graceful gesture if the Chancellor would exclude sticks, balls and shin guards. If the Chancellor has not tried it, I can assure him it is one of the most painful of games one can play and that shin guards are very important. Such a concession would cause pleasure in the North of Scotland and I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries (Mr. M. Macpherson), although he resides in the South of England, is interested in shinty and will back me up. I hope this may be considered.

Mr. William Wells: The particular interest of the hon. Member for Grimsby (Mr. Younger) and myself is in an Amendment to include

Throwing hammers and handles therefor, regulation shot, relay batons, discuses, vaulting poles, hurdles, javelins and heads and shafts therefor.
We have had concessions to-day to the games of cricket and football and concessions have been asked in respect of sports, such as shinty, and we remember the very eloquent plea made by the hon. Member for Chippenham (Mr. Eccles) on the Report stage of the Budget Resolution for concessions for the game of net ball. There have been no concessions so far for athletics. The cost of these concessions will be small but they will be a considerable help to the Amateur Athletic Association and for all these reasons I would commend them to the House. I feel sure that the hon. Member for Chippenham will shortly rise to invite the Chancellor of the Exchequer to make a large concession to the opposite sex. I appeal to the Chancellor to support some of the most classical and virile of sports.

Mr. D. Marshall: I rise to speak in support of requisites for bowls. No doubt the Chancellor is well aware that this is the oldest pastime in this country, with the exception of archery. He is also no doubt aware that great controversy has occurred in all ages in this House on the subject of bowls. In 1511 there was a great controversy at which bowls were debarred from this country altogether in order to promote archery. Later on, in 1541, this House saw fit to make a small repeal against this Act, a rather strange one, enabling anyone whose property was rated at £100 a year to get a licence for bowls. One can well imagine the fuss and commotion in those days of having to obtain a licence. The Chancellor generally makes mention at the end of Budget proceedings of the glorious green fields of England. Does the Chancellor realise that he has already hit those who play bowls. Think of a lovely summer day in Cornwall. In the evening you get bitten by gnats because you can no longer smoke and prevent them biting. That again should be a case for sympathy in regard to this Schedule. I sincerely trust the Chancellor of the Exchequer will see fit to reduce the Purchase Tax on the requisites for bowls, and I assure him by requisites. I do not mean liquid refreshments.

Mr. Eccles: I would like to strike a blow for the girls. The Chancellor knows


there are a million girls who play netball and a large number of both sexes who play lacrosse. I am not basing my submission on purely financial grounds. I ask for adherence to the doctrine of equal tax for equal play. The Chancellor has done nothing for girls' games and I think that is most unfair. This particular game of netball, as he knows, is rapidly growing and is considered to be one of the very best exercises that can be had in built-up areas. It does not require much space and the encouragement of clubs amongst girls is something which ought to have the Chancellor's sympathy. The tax is very heavy, for these posts, as I mentioned on a previous occasion, cost up to 16 guineas per set. I hope, therefore, the Chancellor, who rather disappointed the girls the other day with his statement about equal pay, will do a little something in this particular case to put that matter right.

Brigadier Mackeson: I only want to ask the Chancellor if he will give consideration to the general point that it is much more important to the youth of the country to play games than to watch them. Even when in advanced age it is better to follow the Scottish habit of following a golf ball or a bowl when we cannot find anything else. I hope that the Chancellor will give the assurance that taxation will be arranged so that young people and old will play games rather than watch them.

Mr. Dalton: I am very glad my original initiative has been treated kindly in various sections of the Committee and that desires have been expressed for the further extensions of the reductions which I proposed in my Budget speech on cricket, football, hockey, boxing and rowing. Those were the five I selected. On what principles did I select them? First of all, I selected them very much on the ground which the hon. and gallant Gentleman has just put—in order to encourage the young and active members of the community, to encourage games and sports which require a certain degree of energy and which are better for people to play than merely to watch.
I did, however, have to make a qualification in that a number of these sports requisites are very good export lines and we must not in these times even at this late hour and in this happy general mood

forget the importance of the export trade, without the stimulation of which we should not have the energy required to play these games because we should have to reduce our food rations and so on. That was why I had to exclude with great regret both golf and tennis. Golf and tennis requisites are admirable export lines. I have tried to assist those who are young and active to get more cheaply the requisites for the various sports in which youth and energy play a necessary part along with skill. But I have had to insist that we should not do so at the expense of export lines.
In regard to the various cases which have been put up—quite a number of them I am quite prepared to accept. Perhaps I may begin with the Amendment which stands later on the Paper in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall (Mr. W. Wells). I think we would like to redefine it, but I think it is very nearly right. It has been, as I understand it, discussed with the amateur athletic association who have been making representations to the Treasury. I did not receive these representations personally but I indicated that I would be very glad to go as far as I could to meet their views. I dare say this is pretty nearly right but we would like to look at it again. But in substance we accept.
In regard to games played in the tar North—I am told shinty is really another name for hockey. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] It has been suggested to me that hockey already covered it, but if that is not so I shall certainly have consultations made with certain Highland experts and we shall bring in whatever is necessary to enable the youth of the far North to play this game. I would like to see it sometime when I am up there. It seems to be an exciting game. Then I am told there is an Irish game called hurling—[HON. MEMBERS: Hurley."]—I am advised that there would be an Irish grievance if that was not put in. Although I have not been asked, I should like to add that. In regards to bowls: I have thought that perhaps bowls did not qualify in the first rank as games played by the young and active, but I am told you are never too old to play bowls. I do not feel strongly about it. I have tried to play bowls occasionally. I do not pretend to any skill at it. I


am told many Members are very good at it. I do not think it is nearly as important to encourage it as it is other games for young people but if it is felt that an injustice is done I am quite prepared to introduce bowls. In the case of net-ball, here again I have no wish to seem to be refusing a reasonable request from those who play this game, but I am told that the ball is already covered and falls within the categories already covered by footballs. I gather it is not necessary to refer to net-balls, in terms, as net-balls, but will have that checked. I am advised that the balls used in that game are already covered under the head of "footballs." If that is not so, we will put it in. With regard to lacrosse, I am prepared to bring that in.
11.45 p.m.
When we come to posts and nets, there I am in the same difficulty as I have already expressed to the Committee—the difficulty with regard to definition. I have two doubts. The first is that I think they are probably a good export line. I will have to check that; I have to keep this export consideration in mind all the time, and I have the impression that all these nets, and particularly tennis nets, are a very good export line and, if that is so, must continue. There is also the difficulty of definition. I am not quite sure whether for the purposes of administration I can separate nets and posts—goal-posts. I will look into that again. If we can get over these two difficulties, I have no objections whatever. I must continue to exclude golf and tennis—with regret. I am prepared to meet, I think, a great number of the other particular suggestions made, and will put down Amendments accordingly on the Report stage.

Mr. Stanley: As well as thanking the right hon. Gentleman for his concessions, might I include a rather vulgar consideration? I want to ask a question which, although it might be considered irrelevant, is not, I think, out of order. How much are these concessions going to cost?

Mr. Dalton: I am glad to find the right hon. Gentleman solicitous for the balance. The Opposition is sometimes carried away, but that is not the case tonight. There are ranges between which the cost will lie, according to whether

certain things are or are not possible. The cost of these concessions would be of the order of £1 million. In my view this is a line on which we are right to make concessions. What we are doing here is aiming at the health and happiness of the younger generation. We do a great deal for the older people, but on this occasion it is just as well that we should have the young active people in mind.

Mr. Byers: The right hon. Gentleman has rightly stressed the necessity of keeping good lines for the export trade. I agree with him. I was under the impression that all these things which were for export had a quota; in other words, a quota of production had to go for export. Is that wrong, because from what the Chancellor said it seemed as if the only control over the demand on the home market against what was to go abroad was the Purchase Tax? Surely, that cannot be right. There must be a definite quota to go abroad, and, therefore, the Purchase Tax is irrelevant to the demand on the home market, because production is absolutely fixed.

Mr. Dalton: No, it is not irrelevant. There is in some cases a minimum quota, but I cannot say that for all of them because this matter comes within the field of the President of the Board of Trade, but I will have the matter checked up before I reach a final decision. As I say, I believe there is a minimum quota in some of these lines, but we do not wish to stick to minimums. One of the facts concerning the Purchase Tax is that it switches a certain amount of production, which is on the margin between the home and the export markets, to the export market. It keeps in check the demand for goods in the home market. That is simple economic planning.

Mr. Byers: It is not good planning.

Mr. Dalton: On the contrary, it is admirable planning. The Purchase Tax is an admirable instrument of planning. We want to get more exports. I apologise for repeating that simple proposition, and, therefore, over and above any minimum quota laid down by certain Purchase Tax arrangements we want to make it worth while for manufacturers to send goods abroad and a little less worth while for them to sell them at home. In that way we are doing a good job for exports.

Mr. Byers: Is not the same result achieved by raising the minimum quota?

Mr. Dalton: Not necessarily.

Mr. Medlicott: Could we have a reply on the question of boats?

Mr. Dalton: I was not sure who raised that matter, but I might say now that the intention here is to reduce the Purchase Tax upon boats used by the young and active people in competitive rowing. It is not intended to facilitate those who are punting about in back water.

Mr. Digby: In view of the undertaking given by the Chancellor that he will look into this question again, and, I hope, successfully, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. D. Marshall: I beg to move, in page 64, line 16, at the end, to insert:
120-volt batteries for wireless sets.
I know that the Committee would not wish me to go into this matter in detail at this hour of the night. It may well be that this Amendment is not covered by the wording which I have used. I am quite sure, however, that should the Chancellor agree with the spirit of this Amendment his Department will easily find the right words to cover the purpose of the Amendment. When I was speaking in this Committee on the Finance Bill with regard to the removal of the paraffin tax, the Chancellor said he would remove it in order to help the rural areas. It is in order to help the rural areas that I have put down this Amendment. I received a letter a short time ago from a retailer in my constituency and it puts the matter very well. Here is what is in that letter:
If you allow for a reduction of quality it means that a poor widow living in a cottage two fields away from the mad has to expend five or six times what she had to in 1939 in order to maintain some contact with the wider world.
I feel sure that the Chancellor of the Exchequer realises that in the rural areas wireless sets needing dry batteries are an essential requirement. In view of that—and I am not going to keep the Committee any longer at this late hour—I trust that he will give it consideration, and at least that he will tell me what it would cost.

Mr. Dalton: This would cost £1,000,000 a year, and while I sympathise with the hon. Member's intention I do not think

that a loss of that kind would be in scale with the importance of the matter.

Amendment negatived.

Mr. Wadsworth: I beg to move, in page 64, line 16, at the end, to insert:
Knives, forks and spoons (not fabricated from silver or gold).
I made an appeal to the Chancellor of the Exchequer last year on a similar Amendment, and on that occasion I had the satisfaction of hearing him say that knives, forks and spoons were high on the list of priorities and that he would give favourable consideration to the proposal this year. I am now giving him the opportunity of acceding to the request I then made. I make this appeal again, also, because the prices of knives, forks and spoons have increased considerably since last year and, therefore, there is a greater need now for this relief than there was then. Knives with stainless blades and white handles, the ordinary kind of household knife, have increased in price by 435 per cent. since 1939. That, of course, includes Purchase Tax. Knives, forks and spoons are essential requisites in the house, and as I am asking for a reduction only on those articles which are not fabricated of silver and gold I hope the Chancellor will accept this Amendment.

Mr. Dalton: It is true that I did say last year that we had this on the priority list, and I have given it careful consideration when going over the possible list of concessions this year. I am afraid, however, that I must ask the hon. Member not to press me on it this year, for two reasons. It is true that certain conditions have grown more difficult since last year, but so equally has the export-import position, and cutlery of this kind is a very good export line. We must, I am afraid, in this as in other cases, deliberately send away a number of articles that we would like to keep in order to get the even more essential food and raw materials that we need. Also, it would cost 1,500,000 in a full year. That again is something which I feel we ought not to lose. I do not want to make promises that seem empty, and, therefore, I do not want to use any general phrase such as that we will keep it high on the list. Obviously, if we could feel that the export position was well in hand and improving, half of the argument I have used with regard to the one and a half million would fall. We


might look into it another time, but I am not making another promise for next year. I am stating quite frankly why I cannot accept it now.

Amendment negatived.

12 m.

Mrs. Ayrton Gould: I beg to move in page 64, line 18, at the end, to insert:
Original works of art and reproductions of works of art.
I hope the Chancellor will accept this Amendment. I believe he will, because I know him to have an invincible sense of logic. The position in connection with works of art is exactly like "Alice in Wonderland." I think the Chancellor will also be interested, because of his interest in education, and he has already given one concession on the visual aids to education. It is accepted today, and the Minister of Education is very keen 'on this, that the reproductions of the works of great masters form a very important part of education of children in schools. The Purchase Tax existing now makes it impossible for local authorities and others who control schools to purchase pictures they would like to have, particularly of the reproductions, for the school children.
A most extraordinary situation exists. There is a 100 per cent. tax on the reproductions if they are British made. Many of the reproductions of the greatest pictures have to be imported, either singly or in folios. I have the details of a consignment of very fine pictures here. The invoice is "Value, £300, Import duty, £60, Ex-shipping tax, £5"—making a total of £365. Purchase Tax on these was £365, making a total of £730, or about 145 per cent. Purchase Tax on the original value. How many people can see great pictures in the original? Obviously most people have to get their education and their visual enjoyment from reproductions. In the matter of originals the Chancellor rightly pats himself on the back and chalks it up, as he said, that he s the first Chancellor of the Exchequer who has given a grant to the National art galleries—and we hope he is going to extend his favours soon to provincial galleries—but it is impossible even with the grant to acquire new foreign works of art, because they have to be imported under licence which cannot be obtained.

This is bad for art and very bad for British artists. There is another point, and this, as Alice said, is "curiouser and curiouser." Both originals and reproduction can be imported, and sold without any tax at all provided they come here in book form. There is a company called the Marlborough Rare Books Limited which has on sale a copy of the special edition of Bouffon's Histoire Naturelle for £900, and there are copies of the ordinary edition on sale for £350 each.
I am sure that it will interest the Chancellor of the Exchequer to know that the Leicester Galleries bought one of these copies, broke it up, had an exhibition of illustrations, which were a series of aqua-tints by Picasso, and sold them for 18 guineas each. There are 20 or 30 of such illustrated French books in this country, and I do want to suggest that if we are going to have a reasonable state of affairs it is essential that it should be possible to get reproductions so that they can be brought into the schools and so that we shall be able to get originals into the country. One word on the final irony of the situation. An original copy of an old master can be sold in this country for £20,000, £40,000 or £60,000, and there is no Purchase Tax charged. Incidentally, it is sold in its frame without tax, whereas any new frames are subject to zoo per cent. Purchase Tax. Reproduction of such a picture—which will probably have been moved from one collection to another, so cannot be viewed by the public—are needed both for education and for the visual enjoyment of the people, carries a Too per cent. Purchase Tax on each individual reproduction, and a too per cent. Purchase Tax on each frame. I do not ask that the Chancellor should necessarily carry out the terms of this Amendment, but he should look into this and see if he cannot give some concession to improve visual aids in the education both of children and of adults in this very vital way.

Commander Noble: I ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer to consider the Amendment in my name and in the name of the hon. Member for Central Cardiff (Mr. G. Thomas) which is on the Order Paper, and which refers to framed tures and reproductions of cultural interest purchased by schools and educa-


tional authorities. I understand that before the advent of this tax there was a large sale of framed reproductions to schools, and that the London County Council and county education authorities, besides the schools themselves, were big buyers. There was an exhibition during the last few weeks at the Victoria and Albert Museum of pictures for schools. That exhibition was opened by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Education. Although those pictures were not the reproductions to which we have referred tonight, I was glad to see that the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Education is interested in this subject. I am sure he will agree that reproductions of well-known works are highly desirable in schools from the cultural and educational angle. I hope that the Chancellor of the Exchequer will be able to consult with the Minister of Education and to reconsider this matter.

Mr. Dalton: I think it might be convenient if I give my view on these two Amendments. I think that to some extent they cover the same ground. The Amendment in the name of the hon. and gallant Gentleman who has just spoken is not, as it stands, one which I can accept; but I hope I shall be able to give him some satisfaction in what I am about to say. I must point out that it is difficult for the purpose of a Statute to talk about pictures of cultural interest. I think the lawyers would have a high time arguing the meaning of those words across the floor of a court. Furthermore, there is the difficulty of separating those pictures which are required by schools and by local authorities. The same point I have previously mentioned arises here, and I must apologise for making it again. It is difficult to work the Purchase Tax unless you tax or do not tax for some definite object, apart from the question of who needs or uses the article concerned.
Therefore, I do not think his Amendment will, for these reasons, quite do. On the other hand, the Amendment moved by my hon. Friend the Member for North Hendon (Mrs. Ayrton Gould) was one which, to some extent, was pushing an open door because original works of art are not subject to tax unless they are made of silver or gold in which case, of course, they would be taxable in that sense. Therefore, I do not think we need consider that. But now we come to the

point of substance—the reproduction of works of art. It is quite true that these are charged at the rate of 100 per cent., and we think they should be brought down. It is reasonable that they should be brought down to the class of 33⅓ per cent. I think probably that is all right, but I should like to refer to the terms of the proposition and how far it will carry us if we had it an the 100 per cent. plane. I promise the Committee that I will look at it, and I will accept in principle the Amendment which has been moved, in so far as it is necessary to do this. The first Amendment, as I have intimated, is not necessary. I will look at the cost and that will determine me in saying whether I can bring it to 66⅔ or 33⅓ per cent. I will do that and I think that is what the hon. Gentleman has in mind.

Mrs. Ayrton Gould: Before the Chancellor sits down, I would like to refer to imported reproductions because they should not have 145 per cent. duty. The duty is not only on the original value, but on the whole amount charged.

Mr. Dalton: That is a little wide of the Amendment proposed.

Amendment negatived.

Air-Commodore Harvey: I beg to move, in page 64, line 21, at the end, to insert:
Pile fabrics and woven figured fabrics.
In regard to the reduction of the Purchase Tax from 100 per cent. to 33⅓ per cent. I would draw the attention of the Committee to the anomaly that these are the only textile fabrics taxed at 100 per cent. Last year, I appealed to the Chancellor to reduce the Purchase Tax on silk which stood at 100 per cent., and he met my request by bringing it down to 33⅓. I am sorry the Chancellor has just left the Committee at this very moment because I would like him to have heard this Debate. The Financial Secretary received a deputation led by myself from the industry, representing all sides including the trade unions, and the right hon. Gentleman listened to it and said he thought a good case had been made. He promised to report to the Chancellor. This tax may have been appropriate when it was introduced during the war because it was at that time necessary to try to discourage the production of all textiles not required for the purposes of war, or for absolutely necessary domestic use. Today, our


economic life depends on the development of our exports. We are continually being told that fact. This industry requires great skill. It is an industry built up over hundreds of years and it is bringing large sums of money to us from overseas—some from the hard currency areas.
12.15 a.m.
It is a well known fact that in all industries like these, unless there is a good home market the export market will not thrive at all, because the 100 per cent. Purchase Tax is killing it at the moment. I have personal knowledge of manufacturers who have refused orders from American buyers this year. They have been over this year to buy some of these special fabrics and they were told that they are not being made because it is a seasonal fabric. The industry manufactures certain types of ribbon for two months, say, for export and unless it can supplement that with a few more months of work for the home market it is not economical to undertake manufacture at all. The consequence is that these American buyers have gone to Switzerland to buy their fabrics and ribbons. But it is not entirely on those grounds that my case is based, because the tax was originally imposed at this level with a view to discriminating against luxury type fabrics as opposed to the cheaper lines. But it is having grave repercussions on certain sections of the textile industry at the moment. For the benefit of hon. Members it would be as well to explain that the design or pattern on a fabric may be incorporated either in the process of weaving or by printing the plain fabrics. One hundred per cent. tax is levied in all cases where the design is incorporated in the process of weaving, and at 33⅓ per cent. in all other cases. I have seen examples of a fabric which is priced at 4s. per yard which is taxed at 100 per cent., and then another fabric costing 25s. per yard is taxed at 33⅓ per cent. This is not helpful. For narrow ribbon which ladies wear over their shoulders there are two types, one with spots and one without which is plain ribbon. The one without spots is 33⅓ per cent. and the one with is 100 per cent.
The cost of production of spotless ribbon is higher than the other. The hon. Lady opposite probably knows more about that than I do, but it is quite iniquitious

that the cheaper article should be taxed higher. I am going on now to discuss the case of curtain materials such as are in the working class houses, that is woven curtains. The tax on these fabrics represent a very great hardship to the average housewife. If our homes are to be permitted to have the essential materials to make them bright in these difficult times, then there is a very good case for this tax to be reduced. The matter, as I have said, has been discussed with the trade union representatives and they are in complete agreement with the employers that something must be done if the industry is going to survive at all. The other category of fabric that is involved in this Amendment is that of pile fabrics, this covers not only silk velvets but the inexpensive cotton velours and velveteens which are very much needed in the home of which production should be encouraged so that we can keep out foreign cheap velvets. I believe that before the war there was a tremendous foreign competition in velvets and velveteens and we want to fight that in the future. Narrow fabrics, domestic fabrics—there is a case here for relief for where a pattern is woven into a table cloth or face towel or trimmings the tax is 100 per cent. If there is any pattern at all for the cloth, it is 100 per cent.
It may not be thought to be important because of the existing range of utility fabrics which are free of tax. Anyone having the necessary coupons can buy utility clothes but only the privileged few such as young married couples, and those whose houses have been bombed can buy this type of fabric. If one can get the dockets to furnish a home one is given 15 square yards, which does not go very far in furnishing a home. The production of non-utility fabrics should be encouraged and I hope the Chancellor will not say that he is unable to put this right. It is really a matter of national importance that it should be put right so as to maintain the skill in the industry and assist the export trade. I appreciate that if the Amendment is agreed to it will be costly, but I feel quite sure that in a matter of two or three years it will pay the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I do hope he will give it his full consideration.

Colonel Gomme-Duncan: The hon. and gallant Member for Macclesfield (Air-Commodore Harvey) has already put his


case very well. I would particularly like to refer to the Amendment standing on the Order Paper in my name and that of the hon. and gallant Member for Antrim (Major Haughton), which refers to damasks. The official wording says:
figured textiles woven with jacquard, dobby, shaft or tappet looms.
Anyone with knowledge of the trade will know that those are the particular looms which are used in the manufacture of patterned damasks. What we should like to do if the Chancellor or the Financial Secretary to the Treasury is forthcoming, is to reduce the Purchase Tax from 100 per cent. to 33⅓ per cent. The reasons are these. Our weavers are great experts and in my constituency and in that of my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Antrim there are very expert makers of these things. For six or seven years, if not more, they have been weaving nothing but plain goods. As the hon. and gallant Member for Macclesfield has said, there is a grave danger that this most valuable export trade, apart from the home trade's value, will be threatened because the people who weave these things are threatened with losing the art of weaving. There is no incentive for training young people in this particular line.
It is understood that damasks at the present time can only be woven under licence and we had hoped that before long this particular type of fine damask woven to a pattern would be allowed to be woven again. We had hoped it would he done in time for the British Industries Fair. Now that has passed, we hope it will be in time for a large exhibition arranged in Scotland under the auspices of the Board of Trade entitled "Enterprise Scotland." It would be a very great advantage to that exhibition and of value to the country as a result if these goods could be on the market by that time. It is held that because the article is figured and not plain that it should not be taxable at the additional rate of 661 per cent. In most cases it costs no more to weave the figured article than the plain one. It certainly costs no more to bleach or process it in any other way.
I ask the Financial Secretary to realise that such a tax as there is at present, puts it in the class of luxury goods to which it does not belong. It is

only because of the tax it comes under the head of luxury goods and if it were reduced to 33⅓ per cent. it would not only make a very great difference to Scotland and Northern Ireland and also to Eire, but it would mean the export trade would be topped up very largely by a particularly valuable source of trade much sought after in foreign countries. I feel that just because there are figures on this damask, as opposed to plain damask, it should not therefore be considered a luxury article. The housewives of this country who, we know, are not backed by any particular political organisation, certainly not in Scotland, are surely entitled to a few changes in the everlasting utility. It is not really putting luxury goods on the market; it is putting on utility goods badly needed in a slightly more pleasing form.

Lieut.-Colonel Bromley-Davenport: I would like to support the Amendment of my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Air-Commodore Harvey) to reduce the Purchase Tax on pile and woven figured fabrics from 100 per cent. to 33⅓ per cent. Whatever may be our revenue needs, I am certain it would not be to the advantage of our national economy if the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in order to save revenue, continued a tax which is handicapping us in the production of fabrics of best quality and workmanship, namely, those upon which we increasingly depend for the expansion of our export trade. I regard it of very great significance that it is not only the manufacturers of these fabrics who assure us that the present tax is too heavy a sum to be borne, but also the skilled workers in the industry itself, who are concerned to see that their traditional craftsmanship shall not be allowed to die as a result of this prohibitive Purchase Tax. On the grounds, therefore, of stimulating the production of goods greatly needed for export, of removing an inequitable anomaly, and of ensuring the continued use of the skill and craftsmanship of an important section of our textile industry, I support the Amendment.

Mr. Glenvil Hall: It is quite true, as the hon. and gallant Member for Macclesfield (Air-Commodore Harvey) said, that I received, on behalf of my right hon. Friend, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, a very representative deputation some


while ago and I believe I also received one on his behalf a year ago, and, therefore, I think I can claim to know something about this subject. For that reason, if for no other, I have no reply on the merits to make to the speeches which have come from the other side. I think the case of hon. Members is a strong one, and all I can do tonight in explaining to the Committee that my right hon. Friend is unable to accept this Amendment, is to say he is, doing it almost exclusively on the basis of cost. It would, as I think at least one hon. Member indicated, cost a fairly considerable sum of money, something in the nature of at least £4,000,000 in the current year. For

that reason, and because my right hon. Friend cannot afford to lose that revenue at this time, I reluctantly have to say "no" to the suggestions put forward by hon. Members opposite.

Colonel Gomme-Duncan: Does the right hon. Gentleman make £4,000,000 the cost of a reduction from 100 to 33⅓ per cent.? Could we possibly ask for a crumb of mercy and suggest reducing the Purchase Tax to 50 per cent., or even 75 per cent.?

Question put, "That these words be there inserted."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 51; Noes, 158.

Division No. 262.]
AYES.
[12.31 a.m.


Baldwin, A. E.
Hinchingbrocke, Viscount
Prior-Palmer, Brig O.


Barlow, Sir J.
Hollis, M. C.
Ramsay, Maj. S.


Boles, Lt.-Col. D. C. (Wells)
Hope, Lord J.
Robinson, Wing-Comdr, Roland


Bossom, A. C.
Hurd, A.
Ropner, Col. L.


Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.
Lambert, Hon. G.
Spence, H. R.


Butcher, H. W.
Langford-Holt, J.
Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.


Carson, E.
Mackeson, Brig. H. R.
Studholme, H. G.


Clarke, Col. R. S.
McKie, J. H. (Galloway)
Sutcliffe, H.


Clifton-Brown, Lt.-Col. G.
Maclay, Hon. J. S.
Thomas, J. P. L. (Hereford)


Conant, Maj. R. J. E.
Macpherson, N. (Dumfries)
Thorp, Lt.-Col. R. A F


Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E
Marlowe, A. A. H.
Walker-Smith, D.


Digby, S. W.
Marshall, D (Bodmin)
Wheatley, Colonel M J


Drayson, G. B.
Marshall, S. H. (Sutton)
Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge)


Drewe, C.
Molson, A. H. E.
Willoughby de Eresby Lord


Eccles, D. M.
Neven-Spence, Sir B.
York, C.


Fraser, Sir I. (Lonsdale)
Noble, Comdr. A, H. P.



Gomme-Duncan, Col. A.
Osborne, C.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Hare, Hon. J H. (Woodbridge)
Price-White, Lt.-Col. D.
Air-Commodore Harvey and




Lieut.-Colonel Bromley-Davenport




NOES.


Adams, W. T. (Hammersmith, South)
Fletcher, E. G. M. (Islington, E.)
Lee, F. (Hulme)


Attewell, H. C.
Forman, J. C.
Lee, Miss J. (Cannock)


Austin, H. Lewis
Freeman, Maj. J. (Watford)
Levy, B. W.


Ayrton Gould, Mrs. B
Gallacher, W.
Lewis, A W. J. (Upton)


Barton, C.
Gibbins, J.
Lindgren, G. S.


Bechervaise, A. E.
Gilzean, A.
Logan, D. G


Beswick, F.
Glanville, J. E. (Consett)
Longden, F


Blyton, W. R.
Gordon-Walker, P. C.
McAllister, G


Bowles, F. G. (Nuneaton)
Grierson, E.
Mack, J. D.


Braddock, Mrs. E M. (L'pl, Exch'ge)
Griffiths, D. (Rother Valley)
Mackay, R. W. G (Hull, N. W.)


Braddock, T. (Mitcham)
Haire, John E. (Wycombe)
McLeavy, F


Brown, George (Belper)
Hall, W. G.
Macpherson, T. (Romford)


Bruce, Maj. D. W. T.
Hannar W. (Maryhill)
Mallalieu, J. P. W.


Burke, W. A.
Hardy, E. A.
Mann, Mrs. J.


Byers, Frank
Herbison, Miss M
Manning, Mrs L. (Epping)


Champion, A. J.
Hobson, C. R.
Mathers, G.


Cocks, F. S.
Holman, P.
Millington, Wing-Comdr. E. R


Coldrick, W.
House, G.
Mitchison, G. R.


Collindridge, F.
Hoy, J.
Morris, Lt.-Col. H. (Sheffield, C.)


Collins, V. J.
Hudson, J. H. (Ealing, W.)
Morris, P. (Swansea, W.)


Corbet, Mrs. F. Kt (Camb'well, N.W.)
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Moyle, A.


Corlett, Dr. J.
Hughes, H. D. (Wolverhampton, W.)
Neal, H. (Claycross)


Grossman, R. H. S.
Hynd, H. (Hackney, C.)
Nichol, Mrs. M E. (Bradford, N.)


Darling, Sir W. Y.
Irving, W. J.
Nicholls, H. R. (Stratford)


Davies, Harold (Leek)
Janner, B.
Noel-Baker, Capt. F. E. (Brentford)


Deer, G.
Jeger, Dr. S. W. (St. Pancras, S. E.)
Noel-Buxton, Lady


de Freitas, Geoffrey
Jones, D. T. (Hartlepools)
Orbach, M.


Diamond, J.
Jones, P. Asterley (Hitchin)
Paget, R. T


Dodds, N N.
Keenan, W.
Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)


Driberg, T. E. N
Kendall, W. D
Palmer, A M. F.


Dugdale, J. (W. Bromwich)
Kenyon, C.
Paton, J. (Norwich)


Dumpleton, C. W.
Kinghorn, Sqn.-Ldr. E
Pearson, A.


Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C
Kinley, J.
Peart, Thomas F.


Fernyhough, E.
Lang, G
Platts-Mills, J. F. F




Porter, E. (Warrington)
Silverman, J. (Erdington)
Wallace, H W. (Walthamstow, E.)


Price, M. Philips
Simmons, C J.
Weitzman, D.


Pritt, D. N.
Skeffington, A. M
Wells, P. L. (Faversham)


Pryde, D. J.
Snow, Capt. J. W
Wells, W. T. (Walsall)


Randall, H. E
Sorenson, R. W.
White, H (Derbyshire, N. E.)


Ranger, J.
Soskice, Maj. Sir P.
Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.


Rankin, J.
Stewart, Michael (Futham, E.)
Wigg, Col. G. E.


Robens, A.
Stokes, R. R.
Wilcock, Group-Capt. C. A. B


Robertson, J. J. (Berwick)
Stubbs, A. E.
Willey, F. T. (Sunderland)


Rogers, G. H. R.
Swingler, S.
Willey, O. G. (Cleveland)


Ross, William (Kilmarnock)
Symonds, A. L.
Williams, J. L. (Kelvingrove)


Royle, C.
Taylor, H. B. (Mansfield)
Williams, W. R. (Heston)


Sargood, R.
Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)
Willis, E.


Scollan, T.
Thomas, I. O. (Wrekin)
Wills, Mrs. E. A


Segal, Dr. S.
Thomas, George (Cardiff)
Yates, V. F.


Shackleton, E. A. A
Timmons, J.
Zilliacus, K.


Sharp, Granville
Tolley, L.



Shawcross, C. N. (Widnes)
Usborne, Henry
TELLERS FOR, THE NOES:


Shawcross, Rt. Hn. Sir H. (St. Helens)
Wadsworth, G.
Mr. Joseph Henderson and


Shurmet, P
Wallace, G. D. (Chislehurst)
Mr. Popplewell.


Question put, and agreed to.

Mr. Holman: I beg to move, in page 64, line 21, at the end to insert:
Glass mirrors for domestic use.
I feel confident that this matter is one which concerns every man, woman and child in the country. Mirrors are a necessity in every home. Every man requires a mirror when he shaves, every woman requires a mirror to see her hair is in order, and that her dress is correctly placed, and every child is encouraged to use a mirror to tidy itself and see that its face is clean. Mirrors are found in different categories. The mirror finds its way into utility furniture, where there is no tax upon it. It finds its way into a bathroom cabinet and there the tax is 33⅓ per cent.; but the simple little mirror that every man, woman and child wants in the simplest furnished home bears tax at the rate of 100 per cent. The result is that today mirrors cost from six to seven times what they did in 1939. The mirror whose wholesale price was 6s. in. 1939 was retailed today at from 7s. 6d. to 8s. Today the wholesale price is 20s.; the Purchase Tax is 20s., and it retails at 50s. It is true to say that such a mirror—I am referring to the type of mirror about 13 inches by 21 inches—is a necessity to our people. I appeal to the Chancellor to make some concession to take this type of article out of the luxury category and place it further down the list, bringing it nearer to the position where every article of necessity should be placed; in other words, in the 33⅓ per cent. category, if possible.

Mr. Marlowe: I want to say a word on this subject, because the position seems to be quite illogical. Mirrors are being treated as luxury articles, but obviously they are nothing of the sort. As I under-

stand the position, when the Purchase Tax was first imposed on mirrors, it was at 33⅓ per cent., which I suggest would be the appropriate rate now. In 1942, it was increased to 66⅔ per cent., and in 1943 to 100 per cent. There is a good case here for reduction. It appears that when a mirror is purchased as utility furniture, there is no tax on the mirror. If a mirror is already fitted into some other kind of article, the tax is only 33⅓ per cent.; but if a mirror by itself is bought, the exorbitant rate of 100 per cent. Purchase Tax prevails. Under the relevant Statutory Rule and Order, under which the Board of Trade operates, mirrors are classified as furniture, and if they are pieces of furniture, they ought to carry Purchase Tax at 33⅓ per cent. Here the right hon. Gentleman the Financial Secretary to the Treasury is in conflict with his colleagues at the Board of Trade, because while they call a mirror furniture, he calls it a luxury article, which carries 100 per cent. tax. I hope he will consider this. There are, many matters on which the Chancellor of the Exchequer has told us he would like to have a period for reflection. Here is a very good opportunity for him. I am sure he will not miss the opportunity of having on the table in front of him a suitable mirror, in which to rehearse the postures and gestures with which he delights the Committee, and while so doing, I hope he will consider sympathetically putting these necessary articles on a 33⅓ basis.

Mr. Glenvil Hall: I agree that this is a very stringent tax for what, after all, is a domestic article which is needed by every person at some time of the day. One hundred per cent. is a lot. My right hon. Friend would be delighted to take it off altogether if he could feel that he could afford the amount involved. We are not


sure what the amount is, as it is conjectural. So far as we can estimate, it is roughly £750,000 a year. My right hon. Friend authorises me to say, however—and I think that here I shall be mirroring the feeling of the Committee in informing them of this—that he is willing to reduce it from 100 per cent. to 66⅔, the intermediate rate, and he regrets that he is not able to do as my hon. Friend desires and take it right down to 33⅓ per cent. I hope the 66⅔ per cent. rate will be appreciated by the Committee as a gesture towards what I think is the general wish, that this tax should be reduced.

12.45 a.m.

Mr. Eccles: How does the right hon. Gentleman propose to distinguish between mirrors for domestic use and mirrors for other uses? If he is to give this concession to one, surely he will have to give it to all. Mirrors are used in offices and schools, among many other places.

Mr. Glenvil Hall: I do not want to take up the time of the Committee at this late hour. A detailed matter like this is one which the experts in the Department can work out. One can distinguish between an ordinary common or garden mirror for domestic use or office use, and some of the more ornate mirrors which form part of sets or suites. If we leave it to the experts, I do not think we shall go far wrong, and I hope the Committee will allow the matter to rest there.

Mrs. Corbet: As I put my name to this Amendment, I would like to say that the domestic mirror is the only form of mirror subject to the 100 per cent. tax. The others are all on the lower rate.

Mr. Eccles: Is the mirror in a lady's handbag a domestic mirror?

Mrs. Corbet: Yes.

Mr. Glenvil Hall: Obviously, a mirror in an ornate frame, a Queen Anne mirror, for example, would not be an ordinary domestic mirror.

Mr. John Paton: The Financial Secretary said that the cost of extinguishing the tax completely would be about £750,000. I take it that means extinguishing the tax over the whole range of mirrors. To extinguish it over the section that could properly be described as

domestic mirrors would obviously cost a great deal less. I would like to press him to consider this matter very carefully. This tax, by the enormous increase it represents in the price of mirrors over their prewar cost, represents an additional cost to those establishing new homes, and I ask him to reconsider it from that point of view.

Mrs. Corbet: I cannot help thinking that the hon. Member for Norwich (Mr. J. Paton) is right in this respect, and that the cost of relief in respect of the domestic mirror would be less than the Financial Secretary has estimated. There will be no more difficulty in distinguishing domestic mirrors for the 66⅔ per cent. than there has been for many years in distinguishing them for 100 per cent. tax. While we are very grateful for this concession, if the Financial Secretary could examine it again and do that little bit more, and reduce the tax from the full rate down to the basic rate, we should be even more grateful.

Amendment negatived.

Schedule agreed to.

Orders of the Day — SIXTH SCHEDULE.—(Income Tax in relation to assets transferred under the Coal Industry Nationalisation Act, 1946.)

The Solicitor-General: I beg to move, in page 67, line 23, to leave out "or allowance," and to insert "allowance or charge."
This Amendment is designed to eliminate a possible doubt which might arise from the wording of paragraph 7 of the Schedule. As it reads at present, it might be thought that the wording simply relates to powers of deduction for allowance, whereas the intention is that it should provide not merely for deductions and allowances, but also for balancing charges. The Amendment makes it clear that the words are intended to include charges.

Amendment agreed to.

Schedule, as amended, agreed to.

Orders of the Day — SEVENTH SCHEDULE.—(Computation of profits, etc., for purposes of the Profits Tax.)

The Solicitor-General: I beg to move, in page 75, line 5, to leave out the second "an individual," and to insert "by individuals."
This is a drafting Amendment. The passage at present reads as though it is an individual in partnership. It is obviously intended to read "by individuals" in partnership.

Amendment agreed to.

The Solicitor-General: I beg to move, in page 75, line 39, to leave out "said."
This is a drafting Amendment. There is no previous reference to the preceding paragraph.

Amendment agreed to.

Schedule, as amended, agreed to.

Eighth Schedule agreed to.

Orders of the Day — NINTH SCHEDULE.—(Treatment of farm animals, etc., for Income Tax and Profits Tax purposes.)

Mr. Gerald Williams: I beg to move, in page 86, line 6, leave out "and," and to insert:
except that if the sale was one which the seller was compelled to effect by causes wholly beyond his control the amount included as a trading receipt in respect of any animal sold which is replaced by an animal of worse quality shall not exceed the amount allowable as a deduction in respect of the said animal of worse quality; and.
This Schedule is a highly complicated and technical one dealing with farmers and the method by which they pay their Income Tax. A farmer may choose whether he will pay Income Tax on his trading during the year, or on what is called a herd basis—that is, the herd becomes his capital. Therefore, it does not enter into his trading account. The present Schedule clears up some doubt that has existed up to date. In actual fact, farmers have accounted in these two ways in the past, but this Schedule makes it amply clear. It is an excellent Schedule definitely fair to the farmer as far as it goes, but if a farmer elects to be assessed on the herd basis his choice is irrevocable. So it is very important that we should get this Schedule properly worded and made completely clear.
If the farmer elects to keep his accounts on the herd basis, it means that any animals he buys as an addition to his herd, or any animals he sells as a reduction of his herd, are not accounted for in his profit and loss account. But paragraph (3), subparagraph (iv), lays down that if an animal dies and is replaced, the amount that animal is sold for is credited to the profit and loss account.

A replacement loss is also debited to the profit and loss account. But in the case of the replacement animal—that is, the animal which is replacing the original animal—the replacement cost must not exceed the amount of the sale. In the same way, if the replacement animal is of worse quality, receipts from the sale must not exceed the cost of replacement. If the herd is sold as a whole, paragraph (3), subparagraph (iv) holds good, and it may well happen that the whole herd may be sold because of foot-and-mouth disease or some other contingency.
There is also the point that the whole herd may be sold compulsorily, because a tenant farmer may have a herd and may be given notice to quit. Having nowhere to put his cattle, he then has to sell them. It may be that an owner occupier is dispossessed of his farm, has nowhere else to go, and in the same way has to sell his herd. He can sell it all right; but when he comes to start a new herd, under this paragraph if he gets inferior stock—which he may well do, because a lifetime can be spent building up a pedigree herd and he may not be able to buy stock of the same quality all at once—he may have to pay Income Tax on the difference between the sale of the original herd and the purchase of the new herd. This Amendment gets over that trouble. I would like to point out that if one treats it the other way round—where the replacement is of better quality—the Treasury is protected against a claim for tax under paragraph (3), subparagraph (iv). The purpose of this Amendment is merely to make it clear for both sides—for the Treasury and for the farmer We are not asking for any preferential treatment. We are trying to make the Schedule clear and to improve it Therefore, I hope the Financial Secretary will see our argument and accept it.

Mr. Glenvil Hall: The hon. Member for Tonbridge (Mr. G. Williams) has put the case very clearly and briefly, and extremely well. He leaves me very little to add. What he says is quite true. The object of the Amendment is to ensure that if a farmer who is compelled—through no fault of his own, but possibly because he has to give up a farm—to sell his herd, subsequently starts another herd and the price paid for the new herd is less than that which he received for the herd he sold, he shall not be compelled to enter the difference as a receipt. I


understand that the National Farmers' Union, who have marched in step with us on this part of the Bill, have seen this Amendment, and have agreed to its terms, and I have great pleasure in accepting it.

Amendment agreed to.

1.0 a.m.

Mr. Paget: I beg to move, in page 86, line 11, at the end, to insert:
and provided further that where all or a substantial part of the progeny of the production herd are sold or otherwise transferred, and either

(a) the transferee is a body of persons over whom the transferor has control or the transferee is a body of persons over whom the transferor has control or both the transferor and the transferee are bodies of persons and some other person has control over both of them, or
(b) it appears that the sole or main object of the transaction is to recreate at some future time a production herd in which an interest will be held by the transferor or his wife or children or some body of persons over whom the transferor or his wife or children have control,
and where within the period of five years a production herd is formed or begins to be formed from the said progeny, then for the purpose of this sub-paragraph the new production herd shall be deemed to have been acquired by the transferor.
This is an important Schedule with regard to agriculture, and I think that in order to explain these complicated terms it is necessary to say what has been actually happening. As the hon. Member for Tonbridge (Mr. G. Williams) has told the Committee, farmers have had the option to treat their herds as capital or as stock in trade, but it is only recently that it has been realised that a herd can be treated as capital. Treating a herd as capital is a convenient way of reinvesting untaxed income. The way it is done is this. A pedigree herd is built up. The animals bred are taken into that herd at the cost of production. In point of fact, the building up of that herd costs a great deal more than the amount which can be brought on to the books. The real cost goes into the accounts as a loss, and that loss is allowed for Income Tax purposes and a capital asset is built out of a loss for which allowance is made. That is a system fairly widely adopted today by farmers, and, indeed, by business men who have been buying up pedigree herds.
As I understand it, this Schedule is not aimed at that. There is the fact that it may be considered as something of a wangle. It is a wangle, but it is a convenient method of introducing capital into agriculture and introducing it where it is most beneficial—in improving the live stock of this country. The Chancellor has a soft spot in his heart so far as agriculture is concerned, and he is prepared to let it go by. But something which may be mischievous has been going on. The capital asset built up in a herd is not left in agriculture, but is taken out again. The production herd is sold and the capital profit taken out and spent as income, and the progeny of that herd and the breeding of that herd is retained. A new production herd is thus created out of the project at a cost of no milk supply while the young stock is growing up. No milk supply represents a loss of profit, and that loss is chargeable against Income Tax, and when the new production herd is built up, that can be regained and another capital profit taken.
Now, that is not only a loss to the Revenue—and illegitimate loss to the Revenue—but it is bad farming. You are not having your herd running on regularly with your farming. You are dropping your milk production during some periods, and I am sure that not only I, but hon. Members opposite, wish to stop that happening. That is precisely what this Schedule does not stop. It is a very obscure Schedule. I have had the advantage of discussing this at great length with my hon. Friend the Member for West Leicester (Mr. Janner), who is perhaps a leading authority on Income Tax law. We took an hour to work out one paragraph, and another paragraph seemed wholly incomprehensible.
There may be something to be said for that when one is trying to defeat tax evasion. If you have a very obscure provision, then when people devise schemes to avoid tax and they go to their lawyers for some advice on it, the lawyers tell them that the provision is so incomprehensible that they cannot say whether the plan is good or not. Then they say, "Well, we do not want to have a law case, do not do it." Obscurity may be one of the main purposes of this provision if it is to stop tax avoidance. Certainly it has been achieved, if, for instance, I


may refer to paragraph 5 (b), which reads:
it appears with respect to the transfer, of with respect to transactions of which the transfer is one, that the sole or main benefit or one of the main benefits which, apart from the provisions of this paragraph, might have been expected to accrue to the parties or any of them was a benefit resulting from the obtaining of a right to make an election for the herd basis, or from such an election having effect or ceasing to have effect, or from such an election having a greater effect or less effect—
If anyone can say what that means—

The Deputy-Chairman: I do not find any of that in the Amendment.

Mr. Stanley: On a point of Order, Mr. Beaumont. I am a little puzzled. I do not pretend to have understood one word of what the hon. and learned Gentleman has said, but he has told us the object of this Amendment. He has told us that it is to stop tax evasion; in other words, to make someone pay a tax which, under the Bill as now drafted, he would not have to pay. If it is so designed, it imposes a charge and is not in Order.

The Deputy-Chairman: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for bringing the point to my notice. I am of opinion, on the assumption the hon. and learned Gentleman has made, that it would be a charge and that the Amendment is out of Order.

Mr. Paget: Further to that point of Order. What I am saying is that this does not impose a charge. It merely prevents a method of evading this tax. That does not impose a new charge.

The Deputy-Chairman: I do not want to enter into an argument with the hon. and learned Gentleman. The Amendment appears to be out of Order.

Mr. Paget: If somebody who today is not liable to tax would, by the Amendment be made liable,' that imposes a charge, but if this Amendment merely prevents somebody from adopting a device which in the future might enable him to avoid this tax, that does not impose any charge because nobody is liable at the moment.

The Deputy-Chairman: As the hon. and learned Gentleman has said, this is very complicated. It is confusing me. From what he has said, I rule that this Amendment is out of Order.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Schedule, as amended, be the Ninth Schedule to the Bill."

Captain Crookshank: May I ask a question, as the hon. and learned Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) has said that this is a very complicated affair? I would be very much obliged if one of the Ministers could say something on paragraph (8). Having dealt with these other matters which, as I understood it, were merely to cover the point of using taxation procedure, it suddenly says:
The preceding provisions of this Schedule shall, with the necessary adaptations apply in relation to trades other than farming.
I thought the Schedule had to do with farming and nothing else. Can he, the Financial Secretary, say what further thing is envisaged? The whole basis of the Schedule is to deal with herds which, by definition, are flocks, or any collection of animals. In subparagraph (3) of paragraph 8, it says the provisions shall apply in relation to animals or other creatures kept singly as they apply in relation to herds. Single animals cannot be herds or a collection of animals. I wonder what exactly that is meant to cover. We think we know, but we are not quite certain.

Mr. Glenvil Hall: The answer to the right hon. and gallant Gentleman is that sub-paragraph (1) makes it clear that when you are talking of farming it includes trades other than what might be described strictly as farming. For example it includes someone who goes in for horse breeding. He is not using working horses, but is keeping them to breed from them. It includes poultry and animals, and covers all kinds of animal breeding and some of that might be said, in the normal everyday use of words, not to be strictly farming. Sub-paragraph (2) provides as I have already indicated, that election shall apply to all living creatures other than animals. For example, poultry are not animals; they are birds. Subparagraph (3), which applies to individual animals, was actually put in at the request of the National Farmers' Union. It is not of great practical value, but they thought it was essential when making these regulations that herds should include single animals because on occasions you might find someone had a herd and also had a single animal of some other breed. That is rather disjointed, but it is the best explanation I can give the right hon. and


gallant Gentleman, and it has the additional merit of being the correct one.

Captain Crookshank: Perhaps at this time of the night we may leave it there.

Mr. Paget: I was not able to move my Amendment, but I would like to point out that that paragraph (6) provides that, where the capital herd is sold, it shall be treated as subject to a proviso that if the owner of the herd starts another production herd within five years, it shall no longer be treated as capital, but the new herd shall be treated as replacement. In point of fact, the proviso will not do what it is required to do, because the position has been somewhat obscure and where production herds have been sold and their young stock have been retained with a view to creating another production herd, a new trading entity has always been created for that purpose. This is done particularly in Ayrshire. There this practice of creating a new trading entity to take over the young stock and reform the herd has always been adopted. I could give the right hon. Gentleman a whole series of instances where that has been done.

1.15 a.m.

Mr. G. Williams: On a point of Order I think the hon. and learned Gentleman is talking about paragraph (3), sub-paragraph (6), and not paragraph (6), which does not seem to have anything to do with what he is talking about.

Mr. Paget: I think I mentioned paragraph (3), sub-paragraph (6). I am extremely sorry if I did not. The position is that a number of gaps are blocked up, but the gate is left open. The Amendment, which you ruled out of Order, is designed to close that gate.

The Deputy-Chairman: It was ruled out of Order, therefore the hon. and learned Gentleman cannot discuss it

Mr. Paget: I hope my right hon. Friend will reconsider the Schedule, because if he wants to prevent the selling off of production herds with a view to creating new herds by retaining the young stock, which is a practice of bad farming and takes from the revenue, then he will have to provide protection in addition to that which he has put in the proviso I have

mentioned. The present proviso leaves the matter wide open.

Mr. Glenvil Hall: Perhaps I may clear this matter up. Frankly, paragraph 3, sub-paragraph (6), to which my hon. and learned Friend has drawn the Committee's attention, does deal almost purely with Income Tax, and the words in brackets are there to prevent the owner of a herd spreading the assessments over periods in, excess of 12 months. I will say nothing more on this point. On the other point, I think if he reads paragraph 5 carefully he will see that it provides all the safeguards he wants to pre-Vent the sort of tax evasion he wishes to stop. If we do discover during the course of the year tax evasion of this kind, obviously it would be possible for the House to close that, gap and see this kind of tax evasion stopped. I cannot go farther tonight because we have worked hand in hand with those primarily interested in this matter—the National Farmers' Union—and it would be unfair to agree to accept an Amendment not discussed with them beforehand. If my hon. and learned Friend's fears are realised, we will see next year that some attention is given to this matter.

Mr. Paget: May I refer my right hon. Friend to paragraph (5), which deals with a production herd which is transferred to. a controlled body. It is not done in practice. It is not the production herd, but the young stock which are transferred.

Colonel Gomme-Duncan: We have heard of bad farming from the hon. and learned Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) and we have heard from the right hon. Gentleman that the National Farmers' Union were consulted. Was the National Farmers' Union of Scotland also consulted?

Mr. Glenvil Hall: I cannot imagine Scotland permitting itself to be left out.

Colonel Gomme-Duncan: I can very well imagine Scotland being left out whether she likes it or not.

Mr. Glenvil Hall: I will look into that point.

Schedule, as amended, agreed to.

Bill reported, with Amendments; as amended, to be considered upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 88.]

SUNDAY CINEMATOGRAPH ENTERTAINMENTS

Resolved:
That the Order made by the Secretary of State for the Home Department, extending Section 1 of the Sunday Entertainments Act, 1932, to the City of Leicester, a copy of which Order was presented on 13th June, be approved.
That the Order made by the Secretary of State for the Home Department, extending Section 5 of the Sunday Entertainments Act, 1932, to the City of Liverpool, a copy of which Order was presented on 13th June, be approved.
That the Order made by the Secretary of State for the Home Department, extending Section 1 of the Sunday Entertainments Act, 1932, to the City of Norwich, a copy of which Order was presented on 13th June, be approved.
That the Order made by the Secretary of State for the Home Department, extending Section 1 of the Sunday Entertainments Act, 1932, to the County Borough of Warrington, a copy of which Order was presented on 13th June, be approved.
That the Order made by the Secretary of State for the Home Department, extending Section 1 of the Sunday Entertainments Act, 5932, to the Borough of Harrogate, a copy of which Order was presented on 13th June, be approved.
That the Order made by the Secretary of State for the Home Department, extending Section r of the Sunday Entertainments Act, 5932, to the Borough of Weston-super-Mare, a copy of which Order was presented on 13th June, be approved."—[Mr. Ede.]

SERVICE LAND REQUIREMENTS

Motion made and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Hannan.]

1.22 a.m.

Mr. Hollis: I wish to raise a topic which has been frequently discussed both inside and outside the House—the question of the acquisition and requisition of land by Service Departments. I do not wish to take the House over ground which has been thoroughly covered, not of course, because I wish to unsay anything that has been said either by myself or by my hon. and right hon. Friends, or to diminish its importance, but simply because I want to raise one or two new issues which have been brought to my attention more recently since we last discussed this topic.
The situation of this controversy, as hon. Members are aware, is that it cul-

minated in a statement made by the Prime Minister on 25th February, a provisional statement about Government policy towards the training areas. The promise was then made to us that we should have a White Paper in due course in which the Government's policy would be more fully set out. Naturally, we cannot get very much further until the White Paper is forthcoming. On that point all I would say is that we should be grateful if the Under-Secretary of State for War could give us any indication of when we may expect the White Paper, which is most eagerly awaited, and if he can tell us when we may expect the local public inquiries which have already been promised by the Prime Minister in his provisional statement, and also in what way members of the public will be able to bring forward their views not only upon local problems, but also on the general over-all problem, without which obviously local problems can hardly be satisfactorily settled.
After having said that, I would like to raise the new issues, which have not been so much debated but which have recently been forced very much to our attention. The whole basis of this problem is that military experts have reached the conclusion that it is necessary to have training with live ammunition which it was not thought necessary to have—probably wrongly—before the war. As the result of that, a problem is created because all sorts of land which could then be used by the War Department and inhabited at the same time by civilians now has to be used—or so the argument goes—exclusively by the War Department. In addition to this live training, it is also thought that there must be co-operative training between the military and the R.A.F., and that creates a situation which is described in a letter to one of my constituents from the Air Ministry about a recent joint exercise of the R.A.F. and the military. The Air Ministry defines its policy and says:
Practices of this description are essential to the efficiency of the R.A.F. If heavy bombs were not used from time to time, the flying personnel would not be properly exercised in the duties they will have to undertake in the event of war and ground crews would not be familiar with the practical preparation and loading of explosives. Furthermore it is essential that these exercises should be subjected to practical use at intervals in


order to ensure that they are remaining in good order. Only by going through the whole procedure is it possible to discover weaknesses in men and material.
I have no quarrel with that general principle, but want to direct the attention of the Under-Secretary of State to the logical consequences. Not only are people not being allowed to live in the training areas, but in certain parts life is rapidly becoming intolerable for the people in the neighbourhood of those areas. On Friday, 7th May, a very heavy exercise took place at Larkhill, in Wiltshire, in which 4,000 lb. bombs were dropped. As a result, very considerable damage was done in the neighbouring villages of Easterson, Market Lavington and Urchfont, which happen to be in my constituency. I had to give a lecture at Urchfont Manor on the following morning, and at breakfast time received a number of telephone calls from residents in those villages. I took the opportunity of my visit to Urchfont to inspect the villages to see the places where ceilings had come down, ornaments been shaken from mantelpieces and windows broken and at the Manor a part of the wainscotting had been brought away as the result of the explosion.
On that subsequent Monday I asked a Private Notice Question of the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for Air, as the result of which a further and heavier exercise which was to have taken place on the following Tuesday was reduced. A promise was made by the right hon. Gentleman that 4,000 lb. bombs would not be used and that only 500 lb. bombs would be used in subsequent exercises. The Secretary of State said he was satisfied that no danger would result from the use of these much smaller bombs. The exercise took place and there was no danger, so far as I could ascertain, to civilians in the sense that no immediate damage was done. But on the subsequent occasion, I received a large number of complaints from people of the noise and disturbance caused. The disturbance was this time in a slightly different direction, for the effects of blast are very curious and sometimes places near at hand suffer little and those further away suffer severely from the effects of an explosion. The Air Vice-Marshal who was in command of the School of Air Support in that neighbourhood gave his opinion in the Press that

In my opinion the reports have been grossly exaggerated. This is the only range in England where such a bomb can be dropped …
—that is, speaking of the 4,000-lb. bomb the cancellation of which in the exercise he resented—
and if you cannot use them on this range then we have 'had it.'
I suggest that from the position taken up by the Secretary of State for Air and the statement made by the Air Vice-Marshal this logical sequence necessarily follows. At present that range is the only place in England where 4,000-lb. bombs can be dropped. If it is necessary that they should be dropped from time to time, and that these military exercises should take place, and if we have the promise of the Secretary of State for Air that they shall not be dropped in this place, it follows that some new place for the dropping of these bombs must be prepared. These exercises can only tolerably take place in a much more deserted part or the country than the heart of Wiltshire. If this new exercise ground is being prepared in some more deserted part of the country — the North of Scotland, or wherever it may be—and if considerable public inconvenience is caused even by the smaller exercises, does it not follow that these smaller R.A.F. - military exercises should also be moved from the inhabited parts of Wiltshire to the less inhabited parts, where they can more conveniently take place?
The second point I would like to raise is that of ammunition dumps, of which there are an intolerable and incomprehensibly large number still lying about in various parts of the country. One of the most popular of all the beauty spots in the South of England is Savernake Forest. During the war an ammunition dump was built up there which now consists almost entirely of captured German ammunition. Why this ammunition was ever brought to England at all I have been asking for two years, and have never been able to get any sort of answer. It was long before this Government was in power, and it is something for which I cannot blame the hon. Member personally. But two explosions have occurred, and there have been fatal accidents. We were told as a result of an inquiry that it was impossible to tell whether these German bombs had booby traps attached to them or not, and we


were told that they would eventually be taken out to sea and dumped there, but labour would not be available for a considerable time. Why they were ever brought overseas from Germany in order subsequently to be taken back and dropped in the sea is entirely incomprehensible to me.
The hope of the people of that neighbourhood was that at any rate as soon as the war came to an end these dumps would begin rapidly to diminish. In point of fact, after the first explosion some of the ammunition was taken away, but subsequently more ammunition has arrived. When the second explosion took place it was merely by accident that this load was at the last minute diverted from being unloaded in Marlborough to be dumped at Savernake, and when the explosion took place it might well have taken place in the station at Marlborough. If that had happened we have every reason for thinking that that beautiful little town would have been destroyed with considerable loss of life instead of the loss of three or four lives.
At present there is no sign whatever of that ammunition dump diminishing and the same applies to a number of ammunition dumps throughout the country. Only last week I put a Question to the Secretary of State for War as to when we might hope that Savernake Forest would be free of the unwelcomed visitation of this exploding ammunition. I received a reply to that statement in which it was stated that His Majesty's Government hope, without making any promise, to have it free at the beginning of 1949. I cannot see why it should take that enormous amount of time in order to remove those stores of ammunition. It seems to be beyond all reason, and we never get the least explanation why it will take this enormous time. Therefore, I have raised these two new points, in addition to the points already raised, for which I shall be most grateful if the Under-Secretary of State for War can give us some comfort and some information. I would also ask him if he would throw some light on the two general problems as to when these local public inquiries are likely to be held and when are we likely to see the White Paper that has been promised by the Prime Minister.

1.36 a.m.

Mr. J. H. Hare: I should like to reinforce what has been

said by my hon. Friend the Member for Devizes (Mr. Hollis), and to concentrate on the White Paper which has been promised and which has been held up for far too long. It is really intolerable that many hundreds, and possibly thousands, of citizens of this country, who have been dispossessed by the War Office and other Defence Ministries, should not know whether or not they are going to be allowed to return to their own homes. I can speak with a certain lack of prejudice, because in my constituency the War Office have returned battle areas, but there are many battle areas in East Anglia not returned to their owners. Promises were made during the war by both the War Office and the civil authorities that this land which was taken over was only for the period of the war, and that once the war was over these areas would be returned to the original inhabitants.
Those were solemn promises made by responsible officers as well as responsible civilian officers. Still those promises have not been redeemed by the War Office, and I should like to know what are the reasons for those pledges being dishonoured. Two years after the war with Germany was concluded, it is not to be expected that a Government should dishonour pledges made during the war. It is quite intolerable that one single citizen in this country should be in that position. It is worse when we remember it is not one single citizen, but hundreds and possibly thousands of citizens who are so placed. The land was taken over on a solemn pledge that it would be handed back. Now we are informed not only that it is going to be retained, but that larger areas around are to be taken over, so that the battleground should be made larger and more effective. All I ask is that, as a result of this debate on the Adjournment Motion, we should have some assurance from the Under-Secretary that we are to have definite information at an early date as to where we stand. We all feel most deeply that the Government have no right to delay this matter any longer.

1.38 a.m.

Viscount Hinchingbrooke: It is a curious, but important fact, that in England the more the public see their Army in action, the less attractive they find it. I do not doubt that one of the reasons for the slow response


to recruitment is because the Army has not carried out the promises given in the war. They are permanently quartered today on too many acres of England and they are apparent with all their paraphernalia and battle array as too great a proportion of our population. A great part of my constituency has been dominated by the Army for much too long. After the last war, the Army cleared up in double quick time and got into the esteem of the public thereby. The generals should not think that, by hanging on to land year after year, by extending their boundaries, by bombing practices, and by putting up barbed wire, that they are making the Army attractive. They are doing the reverse. The temper in my constituency has been rising all the time, and I am very glad of it. Perhaps a year ago we might have had some difficulty in finding a case, but there is no doubt now that public feeling is rising. I think the War Office chance of keeping their end up at a well balanced local public inquiry is much less than it was before. The Under-Secretary of State had better look into that side of the matter, and see that these decisions are now taken very rapidly indeed, because the effect of a long delay is having very deleterious consequences on the public morale and the affection of the people for their Army.

1.40 a.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for War (Mr. John Freeman): The noble Lord has made in one respect a less responsible speech than I think the House would expect of him. I would say that whatever may be the rights and wrongs of any procedure which has been followed, he will, I am certain, take the decision himself, and advise his constituents to take any decision in what he conceives to be the national interest, and not with any intention of depriving the War Office of anything he welcomes, or the reverse, their having.
All three hon. Members who have spoken on the Motion have made references to the White Paper which has been promised and on the general situation appertaining to the acquisition of land. I regret very much—and I hope it will be accepted in good part—that I am not prepared to be drawn on the subject as to what may or may not be covered by the White Paper. I will say, however,

that I should expect it to be available to the House in the very near future. When it is available, then the procedure regarding public inquiries which I was asked about by the hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Hollis) and the matters referred to by the hon. Member for Woodbridge (Mr. H. Hare) will be seen in their true light and can be properly examined by the House. I would say with sincerity and some feeling, because I have followed the problem closely, that it is really to the advantage of hon. Members on all sides of the House to wait until the White Paper does appear. With regard to the delay which has been alleged to have taken place, it may be irritating to hon. Members, but it is sometimes irritating to Government Departments to be pressed by Members on this point. We do feel some frustration about the time these things take. But I ask the House to realise that the sole reason for the delay in production of the White Paper has been the almost unparalleled effort made by the Government to consider the objections which were raised, and to try to devise adequate machinery for dealing with them. I do not propose to say more on the subject of the White Paper, except to repeat that it will be produced, I think, in the very near future, now.
I would like to turn to the problems raised by the hon. Member for Devizes, which concerned his own constituency and on which I would like to give him as much reassurance as I can. First, he has raised again the matter of the 4,000-lb. bombs dropped in the neighbourhood of Market Lavington by the Royal Air Force. He appears to have been under a misapprehension regarding what my right hon. Friend the Secretary for Air told him. The hon. Member says that as a result of complaints, 4,000-lb. bombs would not be dropped again in the area of Market Lavington. My information is that what the Secretary for Air said was that they would not be dropped on the particular date, and they were not. I am anxious to make it clear, so that there shall be no misunderstanding, that I can give no undertaking, having said that, that these bombs will not be dropped in that area. My right hon. Friend has been distressed by the complaints made on the occasion referred to, and he is examining very closely exactly what happened on that occasion, and into what reasonable steps can be taken to avoid its happening again.


Whether he will come to the conclusion that these heavy bombs ought not to be dropped there is a matter into which I cannot enter or give a commitment tonight. I would add, in passing, that the occasion in question was by no means the first time that these heavy bombs had been dropped. I understand that it was the first time that any damage had been done.
In regard to the possibility of moving this bombing range, I entirely agree with the hon. Member that, of course, if it were possible reasonably to take these operations right away from an inhabited area, it would be a very good thing to do. With deference to the hon. Member sitting just above the Gangway, I will not suggest that the operations should be moved to Scotland, but I would agree that if a suitable area could be found which is remote from habitation, that is the answer to this matter. But, in fact, the problem cannot be solved quite as smoothly as that. It is not merely a question of transporting a number of elderly gentlemen to watch a spectacular demonstration of bombing, which I admit might be done anywhere; but of having large numbers of people watching these operations, and other training which takes place on the ground and in the air, all of which forms part of the same exercise. For these reasons, the Air Ministry at the moment regard the use of this part of the country, and their base at Old Sarum, as being essential.
With regard to ammunition in the Savernake Forest, I have little time at my disposal, and I want to speak as fully as I can in the time which is left. There is at the moment a substantial amount of ammunition left there, though it is considerably less than during the war. We realise that as soon as we can remove it.

the better for everyone. I would like to assure the hon. Member, and the citizens of Marlborough, that I believe, in all sincerity, that the danger is so slight as to be almost negligible. I have very carefully examined the safety precautions during the last 24 hours and, while I cannot say that they are 100 per cent. foolproof, I can assure the hon. Member that they are as foolproof as we can get them. We are engaged in moving this ammunition as soon as possible into permanent underground storage. But, it must be remembered that it has mostly been exposed to the weather for long periods; most of it has been to Europe and back again, and it must be most carefully examined and sorted before we can store it in dumps under the ground.
I think that the hon. Gentleman was very reasonable in not grumbling about this, and I would like him to know the progress we have made in this work. The total surplus ammunition we have declared as a result of the end of the war is no less than 1,200,000 tons, and we have cleared it at this rate; between April, 1944, and March, 1945, we cleared only 16,000 tons, but that was at a period when we were very hard pressed. In the year 1945 to 1946, we cleared 270,000 tons, and in the year 1946 to 1947, we cleared 320,000 tons, and I hope that we can keep up that rate. It is most important to remember that this work has to be done by technicians with the highest qualifications, and it is an operation of some danger. But we feel some satisfaction that we have moved it at that rate, and if we can keep it up for the coming year, we shall not have done too badly.

Adjourned accordingly at Nine Minutes to Two o'Clock.